ClayBarham
08-28-2007, 11:43 PM
Most people will accept the idea that the purpose of government is to insure the safety and security of the people it serves. Its purpose is not to cull through the society every year or so and kill off those who do not fit or contribute. Not many would stand for government making decisions like that, at least not in America. Government bureaucrats and elected officials must not have the authority to decide whether some people are to be euthanized or locked up, for reasons of race or religion, size, gender or state of health. We did not elect them to make those decisions, but we should find out if, given the power, they would do that sort of thing. We all shudder at the very thought of it, even though that sort of thing did occur in the 20th century in places like Germany and Russia.
The choices made by government must always fall on the side of life and freedom, unless that life or freedom, breaking the laws of civilization, threatens the similar life and freedom of others. A candidate’s stand on a subject like this is essential to know. If we know the candidate’s basic value system, we can better forecast how he or she will perform in a governing role. This, then, brings us to their view of a woman’s choice to abort a fetus or the right of the unborn to live. Knowledge of the candidate’s view on this issue tells us a lot. It tells us whether the candidate is supportive of individual freedom or prefers to look upon people as a part of community, like a barrel of apples. In the barrel of apples view, it would be a simple decision to opt for removal of contaminated apples, such as Hitler and Stalin did in their respective countries.
The pro-choice lobby tells us, it is a woman’s choice over what happens to her body. It is, except in the case of forcible rape, her choice whether to have sexual intercourse. That is a proper choice. As to the choice to deliver or abort the fetus, the child growing inside her body, is what many question. If she aborts, she is killing a child. The child is unborn into the light of day, still dependent on the mother, but a child no less than if it were born. Euthanizing the child legally, as the mother’s choice, opens a possibility later that the child could be euthanized up to, say age two, or maybe age five, just before it goes to school. Who drew the line and decided abortion, extermination or euthanizing a child, should be limited only to the period of gestation? For those same reasons, could it be a valid choice beyond gestation, perhaps to include levels of acceptable intelligence or capabilities, and even skip over to old age and new levels of dependence? Those who support the choice to abort, and the legal sanction for such a homicide, might just as well support euthanasia for other reasons that support the needs of the community barrel later.
There has never been a vote of the people, in any jurisdiction, whether to support a choice to euthanize anyone. The closest has been Oregon to allow physician-assisted suicide. The approval for women to have the choice to kill their unborn children came from several United States Supreme Court justices, not what you would call a clear choice of the people. Even if such were on the ballot in any or all jurisdictions, it would be rejected by that same court, recognizing that the people themselves cannot cull out segments of its own populace for extermination. The Federal Constitution says nothing about people picking who they want to live with or who to destroy.
The whole idea of a choice to euthanize or a choice to uphold the sanctity of life has divided people into two distinct camps. Those who support candidates, who support the choice to abort, look to their candidates to legislate ill-defined rights and interests of community, the purity of the barrel. Those who support life look to their candidates to support individual freedom and individual rights only, and stay out of the lives of the electorate. If I was so predisposed to murder a relative who had little to live for, was so crippled as to be totally dependent, miserable in knowing he or she could never function, I would not want that decision given to elected officials or their bureaucratic offspring. I would do it myself and suffer the consequences of my actions later.
Which side of the issue does the candidate fall? Is it choice or life? Knowing which side enables the voter to see where the candidate will go in future choices of how individuals and their freedom will be seen by government. It is vitally important as a single issue.
The choices made by government must always fall on the side of life and freedom, unless that life or freedom, breaking the laws of civilization, threatens the similar life and freedom of others. A candidate’s stand on a subject like this is essential to know. If we know the candidate’s basic value system, we can better forecast how he or she will perform in a governing role. This, then, brings us to their view of a woman’s choice to abort a fetus or the right of the unborn to live. Knowledge of the candidate’s view on this issue tells us a lot. It tells us whether the candidate is supportive of individual freedom or prefers to look upon people as a part of community, like a barrel of apples. In the barrel of apples view, it would be a simple decision to opt for removal of contaminated apples, such as Hitler and Stalin did in their respective countries.
The pro-choice lobby tells us, it is a woman’s choice over what happens to her body. It is, except in the case of forcible rape, her choice whether to have sexual intercourse. That is a proper choice. As to the choice to deliver or abort the fetus, the child growing inside her body, is what many question. If she aborts, she is killing a child. The child is unborn into the light of day, still dependent on the mother, but a child no less than if it were born. Euthanizing the child legally, as the mother’s choice, opens a possibility later that the child could be euthanized up to, say age two, or maybe age five, just before it goes to school. Who drew the line and decided abortion, extermination or euthanizing a child, should be limited only to the period of gestation? For those same reasons, could it be a valid choice beyond gestation, perhaps to include levels of acceptable intelligence or capabilities, and even skip over to old age and new levels of dependence? Those who support the choice to abort, and the legal sanction for such a homicide, might just as well support euthanasia for other reasons that support the needs of the community barrel later.
There has never been a vote of the people, in any jurisdiction, whether to support a choice to euthanize anyone. The closest has been Oregon to allow physician-assisted suicide. The approval for women to have the choice to kill their unborn children came from several United States Supreme Court justices, not what you would call a clear choice of the people. Even if such were on the ballot in any or all jurisdictions, it would be rejected by that same court, recognizing that the people themselves cannot cull out segments of its own populace for extermination. The Federal Constitution says nothing about people picking who they want to live with or who to destroy.
The whole idea of a choice to euthanize or a choice to uphold the sanctity of life has divided people into two distinct camps. Those who support candidates, who support the choice to abort, look to their candidates to legislate ill-defined rights and interests of community, the purity of the barrel. Those who support life look to their candidates to support individual freedom and individual rights only, and stay out of the lives of the electorate. If I was so predisposed to murder a relative who had little to live for, was so crippled as to be totally dependent, miserable in knowing he or she could never function, I would not want that decision given to elected officials or their bureaucratic offspring. I would do it myself and suffer the consequences of my actions later.
Which side of the issue does the candidate fall? Is it choice or life? Knowing which side enables the voter to see where the candidate will go in future choices of how individuals and their freedom will be seen by government. It is vitally important as a single issue.