Progressivist to Abortionis

 

Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal before the law and other men and are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It was not serendipitous or happenstance that he chose these rights or placed them as he did. Jefferson and his peers were children of the Enlightenment, living a life-of-the-mind, informed by the ancient (but newly discovered) Greek philosophers – Aristotle, Archimedes, Perictione (mother of Plato), Pythagoras, Socrates, Solon, etc. and the Enlightenment philosophers – Bacon, Diderot, Descartes, Hobbes, Hume, Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Spinoza and Voltaire, etc. (soon to be followed by Jefferson himself and Mary Wollstonecraft)

The heart and soul of the Enlightenment was the pairing of the Marquise Émilie du Châtelet (1706 – 1749) and Francois-Marie Arouet – known to history as Voltaire (1694 – 1778). Lovers, colleagues, competitors, conspirators, geniuses – together they brought the “individual” into existence in a Western world dominated by royal tyranny.

Voltaire was a prolific poet, satirist, playwright, philosopher and protagonist of Catholicism and the French monarchy and its denial of basic human rights – rights that devolve to all human beings as individuals. His voluminous works often featured his thoughts on liberty and strongly influenced Jefferson, who featured them prominently in the American Declaration of Independence.

Émilie was an ebullient, brilliant, beautiful, fearless and determined philosopher, mathematician, physicist and essayist during the early Enlightenment. Rather than receiving an education in the social arts – as most aristocratic women did, she quite literally subjugated knowledge to her will. Her most celebrated achievement is considered to be her translation and intellectual commentary on Isaac Newton’s master work, Principia Mathematica (the Calculus) and its application to the understanding of life, death and the nature of mankind.

The translation, completed days before her death from complications during childbirth (perhaps a result of her frantic efforts to complete the task she knew was her most important work) was published posthumously in 1759 (with a moving homage by Voltaire), is still considered the standard French translation. Her commentary includes a profound contribution to Newtonian mechanics—the postulate of an additional conservation law for total energy, of which kinetic energy of motion is one element.

In a healthy competition, the two famously entered the 1738 Paris Academy prize contest on the nature of fire, since Émilie disagreed with Voltaire’s essay. Although neither of them won (she had to submit anonymously since she was a woman), both essays received honorable mention and were published. She thus became the first woman to have a scientific paper published by the Academy.

Other scientific research of hers contributed to the discovery of light outside the visible spectrum, the speed of light and to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Her intellectual engagement with all of the great minds of the day, preserved in her voluminous archives, demonstrate that her mind was the equal of any in the Age of Enlightenment. She was highly celebrated in her day and her loss devastated Voltaire.

The egotistical Voltaire freely acknowledged that Émilie was his muse for all of his important works and their collaborations over the last fifteen years of her life changed the Western Tradition in ways that literally made individual liberty and Western-style democracy possible.

Jefferson’s inclusion of the inalienable individuals’ right to the “pursuit of happiness” in his “Declaration of Independence” may very well have been a reflection of Émilie du Châtelet’s soul-searching essay On Happiness written at one of the low points of her life.

Long forgotten by history because, as a woman, she was never celebrated after her death, as was Voltaire, although she clearly surpassed him intellectually in the shear depth, breadth and quality of her studies and contributions, she must clearly be recognized as, perhaps, the first truly modern woman and her essays on liberty and freedom of opinion form the intellectual case for true feminism – the positive case for the independent woman, not the screed of the angry, resentful, progressive/liberal American woman.

She once wrote to her young child:

“You are, my dear son, at the happy age when your mind begins to think, yet your heart isn’t powerful enough to overthrow it.”

Émilie du Châtelet was indeed a remarkable woman and an absolute treasure of the Western Tradition.

These modern philosophers had risen from the chaos of the 16th Century Reformation in Europe, where conflict and secession within the Roman Catholic Church rocked the very foundations of Western Civilization and enabled the intoxicating oxygen of free thought to escape into the world unconstrained by religious doctrinairianism.

They all acknowledged that a Creator entity, known in Western civilization as “God”, had graced man (and perhaps other sentient beings in distant regions and/or dimensions of the cosmos) with the ability to contemplate the infinite power and goodness of God. The primacy of human life in this creation therefore, was inviolate of any other sentient being – absent circumstances beyond man’s control, perhaps placed there by God himself. A new and glorious understanding of the relationship that could exist between man and his Creator arose from the ashes of a vengeful deity, forged through the ages by a fearful Church in order to command obedience from an ignorant populace.

It was this new understanding, informed by Socratic logic, that the quest for a more personal relationship between the created and the Creator must be the desire of the Creator himself, leads to a wisdom as old as thought itself – that what the Creator has joined together, let no man put asunder – and yet that is precisely what the PLDC has done to America.

Voltaire himself had written this prayer:

“I’m not a Christian, but that’s only to love Thee more closely, People turn Thee into a tyrant – yet what I seek in Thee is a Father.”

a quotation Jefferson certainly knew from his time in France that belies the characterization by the PLDC that the Founders created a “freedom from religion” in the 1st Amendment. The Enlightenment sought a relationship with the Creator – not an estrangement from the Creator.

In America, the social engineering agenda of the progressives/liberals reaches its apex with the never ending campaign to preserve an absolute right of a pregnant woman to terminate her pregnancy, a creation of God – to literally cast asunder life itself from a sentient human being – at virtually any time for any reason with virtually no allowance for any interest by any other party – behold – the Abortion Industry.

A heretofore unknown, but magically “discovered” – and apparently inalienable – right for any woman to get an abortion was set down in the infamous Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade in 1973 – joining the ignominy of Dred Scott and Plessey in the Pantheon of dreadful Supreme Court rulings. The infamous majority opinion was authored by Associate Justice Harry Blackman and concurred in by Chief Justice Warren Berger and Associate Justices William Brennan, William O. Douglas, Potter Stewart, Thurgood Marshall and Lewis Powell. Associate Justices Byron “Whizzer” White and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissented.

Through all of the legal mumbo-jumbo, three issues stand out; the discovery of a pregnant women’s (and apparently, only the pregnant woman’s) constitutional right to privacy, the definition of when human life begins and the concept central to our entire legal system – what separates us from the police state – the constitutional right of all persons to due process before the law.

Here is what Justice Blackman said about the right to privacy.

“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State (my emphasis) would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent.

Specific and direct harm medically diagnoseable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.”

The previous section demonstrates Justice Blackman’s willful ignorance of the one option available to the pregnant woman that would alleviate the need for this entire action – adoption. It seems to me that, in order for Justice Blackman to be intellectually consistent, court ordered abortion should become the norm for all unwed, poor, stressed, psychologically at-risk women and/or “victims” of unwanted pregnancies. Blackman goes on:

“The Court’s decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. …The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Where certain “fundamental rights” are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a “compelling state interest.”

The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young [young what – human being???] in the human uterus. … The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education … As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that, at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman’s privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.”

Here, in the above passages, Justice Blackman inserts a curious phrase – “potential human life” – and concludes that it is somehow separate from the person of the mother. If this “potential human” is a separate entity from the human host, something would have to happen to deny its humanity. That something is that it would have to be denied the benefits of the womb. His quandary is this: When does the adjective “potential” no longer apply? In other words, when does the being in the womb gain inalienable rights? And what can possibly be a more fundamental right than life itself? He goes on.

“When Texas [the case was brought in Dallas, Texas, the State of residence of Norma L. McCorvey, alias Jane Roe], urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother’s condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment’s command?”

This is an interesting dilemma but Justice Blackman doesn’t want to solve it, even though the solution is self-evident. CONDUCT DUE PROCESS to determine if, in fact, the mother’s condition is a valid condition for terminating the pregnancy. If it is – terminate the pregnancy. Condemned inmates get immense and inordinate access to due process hoping to avoid execution (and then most are executed). Shouldn’t a condemned “potential human life” be granted the same opportunity to avoid execution – especially when we don’t know when “potential” is no longer applicable or if the mother’s life is really in danger?

It is certainly within the bounds of fairness to consider, because of Justice Blackman’s willful avoidance of the simplest and most obvious solutions to the dilemmas he presented, that the good Justices had another agenda – one that mandated legal abortion on a national level – the militant-feminist agenda championed by the PLDC.

It should be noted that several States, Wisconsin and Connecticut for example, at the time defined “unborn child” to mean “a human being from the time of conception until it is born alive,” and declaring it to be the public policy of the State and the legislative intent “to protect and preserve human life from the moment of conception.”

Associate Justice William Rehnquist dissented from the majority opinion. He stated: “There is no constitutional [read Federal] right of privacy, as such…. [The Fourth] Amendment protects individual privacy against certain kinds of governmental intrusion, but its protections go further, and often have nothing to do with privacy at all. Other provisions of the Constitution protect personal privacy from other forms of governmental invasion. But the protection of a person’s General right to privacy – his right to be let alone by other people – is, like the protection of his property and of his very life, left largely to the law of the individual States.”

“Recall that the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution [importantly, the final amendment in the original Bill of Rights authored by the People in 1788] reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States [the Federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

“Even if there were a plaintiff in this case capable of litigating the issue which the Court decides, [Roe/McCorvey was no longer pregnant so the issue was really moot. She later denounced the decision.] I would reach a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Court. I have difficulty in concluding, as the Court does, that the right of “privacy” is involved in this case. Texas, by the statute here challenged, bars the performance of a medical abortion by a licensed physician on a plaintiff such as Roe. A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not “private” in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the “privacy” that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution [after Due Process, of course – here denied], which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy. Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967).”

Justice Rehnquist continued.

“If the Court [ the majority] means by the term “privacy” no more than that the claim of a person to be free from unwanted state regulation of consensual transactions may be a form of “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no doubt that similar claims have been upheld in our earlier decisions on the basis of that liberty. I agree with the statement of MR. JUSTICE STEWART in his concurring opinion that the “liberty,” against deprivation of which without due process [again] the Fourteenth Amendment protects, embraces more than the rights found in the Bill of Rights.”

“But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation without due process of law. The test traditionally applied in the area of social and economic legislation is whether or not a law such as that challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co.,348 U. S. 483, 348 U. S. 491 (1955). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment undoubtedly does place a limit, albeit a broad one, on legislative power to enact laws such as this. If the Texas statute were to prohibit an abortion even where the mother’s life is in jeopardy, I have little doubt that such a statute would lack a rational relation to a valid state objective under the test stated in Williamson, supra. But the Court’s sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court’s opinion apparently substitutes for the established test [a compelling state interest] is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one.

The Court eschews the history of the Fourteenth Amendment in its reliance on the “compelling state interest” test. See Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.,406 U. S. 164, 406 U. S. 179 (1972) (dissenting opinion). But the Court adds a new wrinkle to this test by transposing it from the legal considerations associated with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to this case arising under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Unless I misapprehend the consequences of this transplanting of the “compelling state interest test,” the Court’s opinion will accomplish the seemingly impossible feat of leaving this area of the law more confused than it found it.”

Justice Rehnquist continued his critique with respect to the two defining clauses.

“While the Court’s opinion quotes from the dissent of Mr. Justice Holmes in Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 198 U. S. 74 (1905), the result it reaches is more closely attuned to the majority opinion of Mr. Justice Peckham in that case. As in Lochner and similar cases applying substantive due process standards to economic and social welfare legislation, the adoption of the compelling state interest standard will inevitably require this Court to examine the legislative policies and pass on the wisdom of these policies in the very process of deciding whether a particular state interest put forward may or may not be “compelling.” The decision here to break pregnancy into three distinct terms and to outline the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one, for example, partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

“The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental” [a classic example of a PLDC ‘big lie’], Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U. S. 97, 291 U. S. 105 (1934). Even today, when society’s views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the “right” to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe.”

“To reach its result, the Court [majority] necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn.Stat., Tit. 22, §§ 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857, and “has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.” Ante at 410 U. S. 119.”

“There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other State statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted [July 9, 1868]. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.”

“Even if one were to agree that the case that the Court decides were here, and that the enunciation of the substantive constitutional law in the Court’s opinion were proper, the actual disposition of the case by the Court is still difficult to justify. The Texas statute is struck down in toto, even though the Court apparently concedes that, at later periods of pregnancy Texas might impose these self-same statutory limitations on abortion. My understanding of past practice is that a statute found to be invalid as applied to a particular plaintiff, but not unconstitutional as a whole, is not simply “struck down” but is, instead, declared unconstitutional as applied to the fact situation before the Court. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356 (1886); Street v. New York,394 U. S. 576 (1969).”

“For all of the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.”

The quoted passages in these sections highlight the fact that Justice Blackman and the concurring justices simply disregarded Court precedent to arrive at their decision. The most egregious was the emasculating of the due process and the reserved rights clauses of the Constitution but the others are equally malicious in that they go to great length to cite precedent but then disregard it when it conflicts with their obviously predetermined political decision.

So much for the legalisms. Now let’s talk common sense about the issue of life and privacy.

To what end has this unconstitutional, unnatural, inhuman, profitable, sometimes barbaric and immoral policy been implemented? It has been simply to relieve the personal burden of hapless or careless men and women – careless as in accidental and careless as in “I don’t care.”

This continuing holocaust is killing the spirit, soul and psyche of America and yet, progressives/liberals continue to defend it at all costs – even attempting to undermine the very fabric of the nation through never-ending attacks on the elective process to go along with the court challenges, the politics of personal destruction and “Islamic terrorist-like” campaigns of fear and intimidation to deter any and all discussion of even the slightest modification of abortion laws.

When you have experienced (you cannot simply describe it as “meeting”) an abortion survivor – as I have – one who was born alive during a saline-abortion after having been essentially burned (much like brine does to a ham) in her mother’s womb for the previous 24 hours, you finally begin to comprehend the unparalleled depravity, cruelty and ultimate evil that exists today in the PLDC version of America.

That this miracle baby survived – because the abortionist had not yet arrived at the clinic for his day filled with death and destruction of life – under the care of a nurse who got her to the hospital pediatric ward – all two pounds of her – and then has overcome the abortion induced cerebral palsey to complete marathon races – is proof that there are, indeed, angels live in America, too.

Someday, in the not too distant future, all of the people who continuously advocate for the rewrite of history for the politically correct, in order to remove the people and ideas they find offensive, will themselves be rightly vilified, as no others, for their advocacy of the taking of human life in the womb – the worst atrocity, in terms of the magnitude of evil involved – in human history.

When the American South couldn’t abide the moral truth of their “peculiar institution”, they seceded from the Union and declared their war for separation based on slave v. free. I believe that the PLDC, who cannot abide the moral truth of the sanctity of life have also seceded from our Union by instigating war on our Constitution and its regard for the inalienable right to life without due process – among other issues.

The monumental hypocrisy of the PLDC can be summarized using their own words. In advocating for more and more government handouts to the “needy” in our society, the progressive/liberals regale us with their mantra: “A nation is judged by how it treats the most vulnerable of its people.” The PLDC’s America kills its most vulnerable – our babies in their mother’s womb. I will discuss the level of destruction in a future

The PLDC have set us at war with ourselves again by instituting the “politics of division” –pro-abortion v. pro-life, black v. white, young v. old, poor v. rich, women v. men, liberal v. conservative, gay v. straight, dove v. hawk, non-producer v. producer, conniver v. contributor, God-less v. god-fearing, etc. – always demonizing the opposition.

Summarizing, again. The demon is (could we also say – the “Great Satan”): the male, white, pro-life, old, rich (a relative term), conservative, straight, producing and contributing, God-fearing hawk. And how many of these men are there? If one percent of the population fit this description, I’d be amazed and yet – these demons are allegedly responsible for ALL that ills us. Well, not baby-killing!

This “war footing” colors every aspect of the national dialogue and prevents any progress toward solutions to truly dangerous problems facing this country. Rather than a geographical separation, the progressives/liberals have created an ideological separation and the two philosophies of governance – much as the slave economy was incompatible with the non-slave economy – seem just as irreconcilable.

Lincoln opted to fight for the Union. We can do no less for life. His strategy was the destruction of the South’s will to fight, no matter the cost. It was sound strategy that resulted in a stronger Union. Our generation must also eliminate our abortionist “brother’s and sister’s” will to fight – no matter he cost. The question is how. We shall soon see how.

 

 

 

The PLDC have set us at war with ourselves again by instituting the “politics of division” – pro-life v. pro-abortion, black v. white, young v. old, poor v. rich, women v. men, liberal v. conservative, gay v. straight, dove

v. hawk, producer v. non-producer, contributor v. conniver, God-fearing v. god-less, etc. – always demonizing the opposition.

Summarizing, again. The demon is (could we also say – the “Great Satan”): the male, white, pro-life, old, rich (a relative term), conservative, straight, producing and contributing, God-fearing hawk. And how many of these men are there? If one percent of the population fit this description, I’d be amazed and yet – these demons are allegedly responsible for ALL that ills us. Well, not baby-killing!

This “war footing” colors every aspect of the national dialogue and prevents any progress toward solutions to truly dangerous problems facing this country. Rather than a geographical separation, the progressives/liberals have created an ideological separation and the two philosophies of governance – much as the slave economy was incompatible with the non-slave economy – seem just as irreconcilable.

Lincoln opted to fight for the Union. We can do no less for life. His strategy was the destruction of the South’s will to fight, no matter the cost. It was sound strategy that resulted in a stronger Union. Our generation must also eliminate our abortionist “brother’s and sister’s” will to fight – no matter he cost. The question is how. We shall soon see how.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s