This statement is in response to Amendment 6 and the issues
surrounding abortion. The contents of this statement are brought upon by the
basis of John Locke’s “state of nature” and Abraham Lincoln’s argument for slavery. For those reading, I am strongly opposed to
abortion and despite my journalistic integrity, I cannot remain unbiased in the
matter.
In John
Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government he states, “ TO understand
political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what
state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to
order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they
think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or
depending upon the will of any other man…But though this be a state of
liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that
state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions,
yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his
possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it.”
One might
argue the latter that by being in a state of perfect freedom, women have a
right to their body, and can also choose when to conceive. To argue being in a state of liberty, as
Locke puts it, would suggest that while they have not the liberty to dispose of
any creature in their possession, a nobler cause can justify it. I tend to
disagree. If one such noble cause is the
quality of life for that woman, it would ignore the very state of nature for
which it argues. To suggest the issue on
abortion is solely based on privacy rights and not under the premise of sexual irresponsibility
and the state of life would be to ignore the basis of our Constitution. Below
is Abraham Lincoln’s argument against slavery.
“If A. can
prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B. -- why may not
B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?—
You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.
You do not mean color exactly?--You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.
But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.”
If I were to change the issue to abortion it would sound
like this:
If A. can prove, however conclusively, that she may, of
right, end the life of B. – why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove
equally, that he may end the life of A?
You Say A. is alive, and B. is not, it is the state of life,
then; the one who is alive, has the right to terminate someone not considered
living? Take care, by this rule, you are to kill the first man you meet, who
seems to be in a lesser state of life than your own.
You do not mean the state of life exactly?—You mean that one
has a right to life but not to be saved, and, therefore one has the right to
not save a life? Take care again. By
this rule, you have the right to kill the first man you meet, whom cannot live
without help.
But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can
make it your interest, you have the right to decide when someone is alive. Very well. And if he had the capacity, and
can make it his interest, he has the right to determine whether you are living.
