On the Constitutional Side…

Right to Choose versus the Right to Life, or Constitution versus Religion

This is both a political, as well as, a constitutional hot potato! You have the religious view as to the right to life fighting against a person’s basic right to both privacy and choice. Bothe religion and our US Constitution are man-made. Religion is for man’s spiritual life, but takes on the dogma of a specific religious sect or leader; on the other hand, our US Constitution lays out the framework for our Country’s system of government and the Bill of Rights (Articles 1-10) lay out prohibitions and limitations upon our government – the Bill of Rights are a slight touching of the surface of our inalienable rights, which God has bestowed upon us.

On the religious side you have the biblical text which many people rely on Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” This indicates that God knew each and every one of us prior to our creation in the womb. This only makes sense, because God created us and our spirit came from God. Consider the other side, also in the biblical text, Genesis 2:7, “Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” This tells us that man did not become a living breathing soul until he received the breath of life. I mentioned both sides of this contradictory argument and many others in my book, “On Bullshit, Philosophy & Religion” (at lulu.com). So, the debate continues, when does life begin at conception, or at birth? Just because God knew you before you were formed in the womb does that make you a living person? Just because you do not have the breath of life in you does that make you a parasite within the womb, or a life? But why doesn’t the Christian community ever quote this passage in Genesis?

The Roe v. Wade case is probably one of the most misunderstood and the most controversial. People look at it as the case that allows babies to die and others see it as permitting the right to choice. The fact is this case is about PRIVACY. You as a person have a right to privacy and the right to make choices, without being forced to take on another person’s view. Despite what people may think or tell you. Who are a group of pencil pushing men to tell a woman what she can do to her body? For that matter, who does that politician think he/she is (as a representative) to tell a person what they can do to their own body, with reference to euthanasia? Yet that very same politician is for, more often than not, the death penalty; hmmmm!

The Christian’s, along with every other group of people, want you to see things their way and turn from the error of your thinking. Christian’s throughout history have forced people to see their way, and then were promptly slaughtered so they would not backslide into sin. Think about the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Witch hunts, etc. All in the name of the Almighty!

On the Constitutional side you have protected rights under the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not give you any rights, they protect rights which you possess either by God’s grace or by virtue of the fact that you live and breathe. You can suspend your rights, give them up, or you can pick them back up and reclaim them at any time! The Roe v. Wade case expounded upon a right to privacy which you possess. Who can tell you what you can do with your body? Who gave them that right to tell you what you can or cannot do with your body? Regardless of your religious views, a person’s Rights must outweigh another person’s religious view. Your religious views cannot force me to do anything and my rights cannot for you to do anything. If I make a choice, which is between me and God; if you make a religious choice to force me to do something, to protect my soul, then that action subverts God’s intention and institution of freewill. For me to practice my constitutionally protected right does not cast your soul to hell. And one last point is that have you noticed the people who choose life and blow up property and kill others in the name of God and Life? I find that choice to be rather ironic.

Personally, I do not believe that abortion is a proper method of birth control, but I do not have the right to tell another what they can or cannot do with their body, or their life.

What are your thoughts?

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “On the Constitutional Side…

  1. If you start with the premise that life begins at conception, then it is consistent with natural rights theory to argue that abortion should be illegal. If all men are endowed by their Creator with the right to life, liberty and property, and life begins at conception, then an abortion violates all of the individual’s inalienable rights, right to choose be damned. Of course, if you start by saying that life begins at birth, then you can come to the opposite conclusion and still be consistent with natural rights theory. Even amongst libertarians, who often have a black and white view of what the law should be, this is a divisive issue.

    • dmbuteau says:

      The key words there are “Men are endowed” by their creator with certain inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. When life begins is to be determined; if you subscribe to the Jeremiah 1:5 quote then life begins prior to conception, but it is used to uphold that life begins at birth; by subscribing to the quote from Genesis 2:7 then birth does not begin until first breath. And the words in the book of Genesis came long before the words in the book of Jeremiah. And God given Rights are not endowed until you are alive is another idea that must be kept in mind. So, it becomes the circular reasoning and questioning…when does life begin?

      I do not believe that any forethought to this idea was considered by the founding fathers, nor do I believe this became an issue until sometime in the past 100 years (speculation on my part).

      I wholeheartedly agree with you concerning natural rights theory could go either way and to a degree of the Libertarians; on the other hand, isn’t there a certain amount of divisiveness thinking in all parties?

  2. Thanks for an interesting viewpoint. I think I agree with what you’re saying. Another way of looking at it is that Conservatives want an Authority to decide things for the world. For me if I really wanted an authority position on that It would seem that society could just choose who meets up with who and any number of other choices to compel us to live as others want.

    I am personally against abortion but I’m not about to force others to my viewpoint. Thanks. Keep Blogging, Keep Writing.

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