Morality by Geography


Huckabee, in a recent interview, said it was not enough to support reversing Roe v. Wade and that candidates should also back a human life amendment to the Constitution.Huckabee said that “if Roe v. Wade is overturned, we haven’t won the battle.”“All we’ve done is now we’ve created the logic of the Civil War, which says that the right to the human life is geographical, not moral,” Huckabee explained. “I think that’s very problematic.”

He said those who say Roe should be overturned but won’t support a human life amendment “are dead wrong” and following the logic that “slavery could be okay in Georgia but not okay in Massachusetts.”


2 comments so far

  1. Ryan on

    It is because of statements like this that Huck scares the hell out of me…

  2. Jay on

    Well, Huckabee doesn’t scare me as far as I know.

    I think his overall point is a great conversation starter. There are several layers to this “onion” issue and quite possibly unforseen consequences on both sides of the issue:

    “Should abortion laws be determined by individual states?”

    Of course, that would be the result if Roe v Wade & Doe v Bolton were to be reversed. At that point, you would have individual states determining the extent of “women’s rights” in abortion or the extent of “personhood” and subsequent rights given to unborn individuals since there would not be any Constitutional privacy right to abortion.

    Well, then you have lingering Equal Protection issues.

    “Why are some women or some unborn individuals given more or less “rights” based on what state they happen to be in?”

    In Roe, the Court extended rights to all women to seek abortions for that very reason. But science and our collective moral conscience continually points to the unique identity and individuality of the unborn person, and this nation is clearly not ready to say they have no rights whatsoever.

    For example, in personal injury and criminal matters we afford the unborn person certain rights. In some cases the unborn have inheritance rights. Of course, the Supreme Court correctly recognized that aborting babies in the third-trimester while they are in the process of being born is tantamount to infanticide and that partial-birth abortion should have no protection in the Constitution.

    But that creates more questions:

    “Why do we provide the unborn with some rights, but not the right to live?”

    “Do we want morality by geography?”

    “And because laws are to some extent always moral dictates, couldn’t we say that about any law that is different from one state to another?”

    “Do we want our rights to be determined soley by the Constitution?”

    “What happens when the Constitution is wrong?”

    “I thought the Declaration of Independence says are rights come from God or ‘our Creator’?”

    “Do we want a majority to determine these issues?”

    “What if the majority is wrong?”

    “What do we do about moral questions that government charters can’t answer?”

    I think Huckabee is right to say that if this abortion issue is ultimately a moral issue, than it should be dealt with as such. And like slavery, the majority, or individual states, or even the current “Constitutional” rights must be challenged and corrected accordingly if they are wrong.

    “But what determines right and wrong or even … truth?”

    Now, THAT is some more great conversation. . .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: