28 April 2023
Gun and Birth Control
Those who oppose gun control claim that the right to possess firearms is guaranteed by the Constitution’s Second Amendment. If there were no Second Amendment, or no Constitution at all, they would probably own guns, as well, in order to defend themselves in an ultimate libertarian paradise.
Those same libertarians, particularly if they are also
Christian nationalists, typically also oppose the freedom of women to employ
abortion, if not birth control medication, to control their personal
reproductive systems. (They must consider using in vitro fertilization
artificially to promote reproduction to be an acceptable interference with the
natural consequences of sex because it is a willful act.)
Apparently, sexual abstinence is as unobjectionable a
practice as self-defense. In their view,
sexual activity for mutual gratification is less desirable a human impulse than
murdering others in anger and not in order to protect a person’s life or property.
Like it or not, society has succeeded in developing methods
of controlling the unintended creation of babies more effectively than of suppressing sexual emotions. Likewise, unfortunately, our ability to produce
and foment the use of dangerous weapons has outstripped the ability
of some people to control themselves.
Nevertheless, a vocal and influential political faction in
our government, including a majority of justices on the Supreme Court, seems
not to recognize that science has liberated women from biological entrapment by a majur consequence of sex acts. Nor do they acknowledge that in the absence of a liberal
democratic legal or medical method to suppress violent impulses the only
effective way to limit homicidal gun violence is to reduce popular access to weapons of
war.
Arbitrarily ending the lives of ambient minor and adult
humans is incontrovertibly and scientifically antisocial behavior. Whether
destroying or preventing the conception of a non-self-sustainable fetus harms the
community’s general welfare is a matter for metaphysical debate. Its answer
does not challenge the welfare of people in a liberal democratic state. But the absence of effective gun control does.
25 April 2023
Reactionary, Not Conservative
The MAGA Republican coalition which backed former President Trump professed to be the heirs of the conservative Republican Party. However, that wing of opponents to the Democratic administrations of both Barack Obama and Joe Biden really only defined their platform as rejecting most if not all of the incumbents’ progressive policies.
As Groucho Marx sang it 90 years ago, their policy merely is “Whatever it is, I’m against it.” The MAGA Republican Party is not conservative; it is reactionary. Its members have no goal but to defeat any party whose objective is to adopt programs that have a more general purpose than their own personal welfare. This is libertarian in the extreme.
23 April 2023
Religion and Law
Besides
Abortion Limitation, there are other examples of liberal democratic laws that
enforce faith-based rules. These include Sunday Holidays and liquor sales
restrictions, inclusion of religious activities in the tax exemption awarded
to charities and other public services, acceptance of religious belief to
justify conscientious objector status, etc. However,
are these concessions to a person’s freedom to honor principles of spiritual
rectitude commensurate with the Dobbs decision to eliminate the Court’s nationwide grant of a woman’s personal freedom to
obtain an abortion? On one hand, this USSC dictum seems to use the anomaly of
America’s federal system as a convenient way to pass the buck on a
controversial issue. Notwithstanding, it apparently was not intended to have given
the authority to determine national policy to state legislatures or to lower
courts. On the other hand, the Supreme Court’s effective codification of the
imposition of a religious belief held by any state’s majority on all others
in that state is different from the other examples of special legal treatment
for religion cited above. It
concerns a woman’s control, to the extent physically and philosophically
possible, over her own body. Her body is commonly believed to be her single most
essential identity. How dare a system of artificial laws, not to mention a
bench of jurists, interfere in that personal process? |