Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 7:41 PM EDT
I think that our system of checks and balances was well designed. There are times when we will have excellent judges and times when we won't. The problem with legalized abortion is simply that we have not developed a strong enough legally sound argument that will stand the scrutiny of any type of judge.
When the court ruled "under God" needed to be removed from our Pledge of Allegiance, the public outcry immediately caused them to reverse that decision. What this generation has witnessed are judges who interpret public sentiment instead of the laws. Sending you my comments below is an effort to place this idea on trial in the court of public opinion. My search is for brilliant people who could build on or shred the idea. I would appreciate what ever you all have to offer. Simply planting a seed in an appropriate place would also suffice.
Unconstitutionality of Abortion
Our courts have established the woman as a dictator type leadership over her sovereign territory which is clearly defined by the borders of her skin. The current laws seem to establish this irrevocable leadership position as though it is a birthright - not replaceable by elections, impeachment, revolution, invasion, or any other means.
However, our courts have simply touched on this issue by merely establishing the leader, but failed to develop laws of that sovereignty. It has left a leadership of unaccountability and has created a society of non-citizens who are highly susceptible to human rights violations. As a nation, would we dream of invading Iraq, overthrowing Sadam Hussein, and establishing leadership without setting up the laws of that sovereignty? If not, then with all fairness why are we not consistent in setting up the Rights of Sovereign Leadership in all cases? We have established fundamental freedoms to the leader and failed to address the inhabitant/s of the sovereign territory. We have created a void by failing to establish formal legal rules of this leadership position. This failure is discriminatory in nature granting preferential treatment to a single exclusive category of leaders.
We have seen leaders like Attila the Hun, Ivan "the Impaler", King Herod, Adolph Hitler, and Sadam Hussein all kill inhabitants of their sovereignty, or that of another's, for whatever reasons. In all cases, these actions are not socially acceptable. But worse yet, in the case of a woman, we see a leader taking a conscience action to bring an inhabitant into her sovereign territory only to have her selectively terminate their existence. This leadership practice is, by far, worst than any socially unacceptable behavior from human history's most gruesome leaders. We should not make allowances for this gross misrepresentation and the injustices of female practices.
In the case of a woman, we establish, empower, and assist this leader without ever questioning the character of that leader. This failure, also, is discriminatory in nature granting favoritism to an exclusive category of leaders. As a nation, corporation, organization, club, or family we would never dream of doing so in the case of its individual leaders. How have we come to legalize and accept such prejudice as that of the woman over her sovereignty?
Because this nation did not fully trust people's judgment, checks and balances exist mainly for preventing people from abusing their power, except in the case of the woman. We have set up a leader and allow her to behave with tyrannizing practices that would never be tolerated in any other sovereignty. We've set up the leader, but failed to set up a means of providing direction and acceptable rules of order to her particular administration.
Democracy should yield democracy. Does a Democracy have the right to establish Dictatorships? Does a society of elected leadership have the right to establish a Monarch? Have we overstepped our authority by establishing this uncontested irrevocable leader? Have we discriminated by protecting the leader only? I would say that we have created something that we have little understanding of.
Our Constitution is for every generation - past, present, and future. However, our courts seem to have created a void only for the generation in the "pipe line" caught between the present and future by de-humanizing the inhabitant/s of a woman's sovereign territory. Have the courts ruled that our imminent generation does not exist in impregnated women? How have we convinced ourselves to selectively discriminate excluding our imminent generation from all other generations? Because they are still in the pipe line, we establish leaders who can exclude them from free speech, civil liberties, and justice for all. If the government can't destroy these unalienable rights, how can it in-turn establish a leader who can, while still remaining a constitutional government? How can it empower someone else with a power that it itself does not have?
Has our error been simply that we focused on the victim?