Natural Law and the Right to Life
(Photo of an angry Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) pointing at Clarence Thomas during Thomas' U. S. Supreme Court judicial nomination proceedings in 1991)
In my last post, I brought up (current Vice President of the United States) Joe Biden's criticisms of (current U. S. Supreme Court Justice) Clarence Thomas' belief in natural law during Thomas' confirmation hearings during the early 1990's. There is one reason—and one reason only—for Biden's being so critical of Thomas' belief in natural law: the fear that Thomas, as a U. S. Supreme Court Justice, would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, thus recriminalizing abortion on demand.
I'm going to tell you, now, about a personal encounter that I once had with an abortionist. And, as much as I hate to say it, this is the rather disturbing truth about abortionists.
In 2003 a friend of mine, Leon Holmes, was nominated, by then president George W. Bush, to the judiciary of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. I attended a meeting of angry liberals who were opposed to (then president) Bush's nominations to the federal judiciary, which was held in downtown Little Rock, Arkansas at the University of Arkansas' William Bowen School of Law.
During this liberal bitch-fest, a man who was sitting behind me shouted out, "What are we going to do about Leon Holmes?!" After the meeting adjourned, I turned to the man and asked him, "So what's your problem with Leon Holmes?" He said, "He's pro-life" and I said, "So what's wrong with that? What are you, pro-abortion?" He said, "Yes, actually I used to be an abortionist." I said, "What did you do, graduate at the bottom of your class in medical school?" He said, "How did you know?" I said, "It just figures . . . if you're lousy at healing people then you're probably a lot better at killing them."
This is the disturbing truth about abortion on demand: the back-alley butchers have simply moved—legally—onto Main Street.
And this is exactly my problem with abortion on demand: the legality of it. Some women will always seek abortions; just as some jealous, angry husbands will always seek out their cheating spouse's lover in order to kill him. But this doesn't mean that the state (i.e., the government) should legalize such killings.
As far as I'm concerned, if a woman wants to hire someone to kill her unborn child, she should have to find an abortionist who's hiding-out in a back-alley somewhere , because she's got no business being able finding an abortionist right out in the open—operating like a McDonald's or a Wal-Mart—on Main Street.
The U. S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision was made upon a very sketchy legal premise: a right to privacy, which is not explicitly stated but was "discovered" to exist, in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. And this decision mandates—contrary to state laws prohibiting abortion on demand—the legality of abortion on demand in all fifty states, contrary to the Tenth Amendment. In fact, if the abortion issue had not been removed from the political arena to the courts, it would be left up to the people of each state and their elected representatives to decide the issue, as it should have been. As things stand now, abortion on demand is available in every state, regardless of how the peoples of the fifty states feel about abortion on demand (think: McAbortion or Wal-Abortion here).
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . ."
The Declaration of Independence reveals the Founder's legal and philosophical presuppositions: all people are created equally and they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. The right to life being first and foremost, yet the unborn child—thanks to positive law—no longer enjoys this right.
As I've said elsewhere, this is just one, important example of just how off-track—at the philosophical level—our nation has gotten. This rejection of natural law— by Biden and most others—has been going on for many, many years now. This undermining of natural law has been the legal basis for denuding the Bill of Rights: our rights no longer come from nature and nature's God (natural law), they now come from men in high government places (positive law) and this is how our government has been taking them away.
Think about it: if men and governments give us our rights, then men and governments can also take away those same rights, which is exactly what's been happening. But if our rights come from nature and nature's God then they are inalienable rights, which men and governments can never take away.
Which do you prefer?
Another personal story, concerning the same liberal bitch-fest I mentioned earlier, which took place in 2003 at the William Bowen School of Law. After the meeting had adjourned, I spoke with a woman who was an attorney, having gotten her degree in law from the University of Chicago, and I asked her, "In the context of the abortion debate, would you say that human—meaning the unborn child's—rights trump women's rights? Or would you say that women's rights trump human rights?" She said, "Women's rights trump human rights."
What I didn't say to her, because I didn't feel like getting into an argument with her, was that if women's rights trump human rights then men's rights can certainly trump women's rights. In other words, once we reject God-given natural law and natural rights and replace these with man-given positive law and government-given rights, men can take away those rights whenever and for whatever reason they decide to do so.
I'd really like you to think about that, okay?
I'd really like you to think about this too: Since Dr. King's crusade against segregation was based upon natural law—as found in America's founding documents—what do you think happens to his crusade when we reject natural law for positive law? That's right: white people's rights can trump black people's rights.
And I really don't think we want to go there, do we?