A Classic O’Reilly Slugfest, Part II
By Robert Ringer
What makes the seemingly nonsensical positions of a social progressive possible is his refusal to acknowledge the foundation of any civilized society: Natural Law. In fact, I would say that it is a lack of belief in Natural Law that underlies most crimes committed by progressives (and many crimes committed by nonprogressives).
The basic premise of Natural Law is that each person owns his own life and, therefore, has the right of self-choice — the right to do anything he wishes with his life, so long as he does not forcibly interfere with the life of any other person. Natural Law also may be properly thought of as the “law of nonaggression”; i.e., even though an individual has the right of self choice, that does not include the right to commit aggression against others.
Any time that an individual (or group of individuals) exerts authority over someone else’s life without his consent, he is violating Natural Law. Which brings me to the difference between Natural Law and government law: Natural Law demands personal freedom, while government law demands that certain people obey the dictates of those in power.
More to the point, Natural Law requires that liberty be given a higher value than all other objectives. If one accepts the principle of Natural Law but compromises his beliefs to suit his whims, he is guilty of practicing situational ethics.
Now, back to Joan Walsh and her recent slugfest with Bill O’Reilly. On her website, she says, “I’m Irish Catholic, and I was raised to think abortion was wrong — but, in the end, I support the law as it is.”
Which makes me wonder if Ms. Walsh would have returned a runaway slave to his master in pre-Civil War America just because that was the law. Or called the Gestapo in Nazi Germany to turn in a family of Jews hiding in the cellar next door just because that was the law. As I look around me at the ashes of Western civilization, it’s not difficult to understand how Ms. Walsh came by her belief that all laws, no matter how immoral, are sacrosanct.
Walsh says that “[O’Reilly] just asked the same loaded question over and over seeking the same answer: Do I think there should be any protections for late-term fetuses?” The answer she gave O’Reilly on his show was, “It’s heart-wrenching, and it gets a lot of attention, but we should note that only 1 percent of all abortions in the U.S. are after 21 weeks.”
She argues that her “overriding principle is that [she] believes this very tough choice can only belong to women.” After all, doesn’t Natural Law say that a woman owns her own life and therefore has the right to do anything she wishes with that life? Yes, but let’s not forget the rest of that: “so long as she does not forcibly interfere with the life of any other person.”
However, by simply declaring that a baby in the womb is not a human being, this ceases to be a moral problem for the social progressive. (Without such a declaration, of course, Walsh’s 1 percent statistic about late abortions becomes a red herring. After all, a baby who’s been in the womb for three months has just as much right to live as one who has made it to seven or eight months.)
By dehumanizing an unborn child and simply calling him a “fetus,” pro-abortion advocates are able to bypass the whole issue of natural rights — including the fact that even though Natural Law says that an individual has the right of self choice, self choice does not include the right to commit aggression against others. But if an unborn baby is not human, killing him is not aggression.
To me, it’s axiomatic that all people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights — including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the founding fathers had never said so, it wouldn’t have mattered at all. Why? Because for all people of goodwill, individual sovereignty is a self-evident human right.
So, to those of us who believe in the true meaning of Natural Law, Dr. Tiller did break the law — and did so thousands of times. I’m always open to the rational opinions of others, but I admit that I have difficulty entering into a discussion with anyone who begins with the premise that a “fetus” (i.e., an unborn baby, not fully developed) is not human.
I’m not going to be arrogant here and invoke the Gore Mantra. I don’t for a second believe that the debate is over, nor will it ever be. But if there is any chance for us to once again become a semi-civilized society, a good place to start is to think about, and talk about, Natural Law in a rational manner — i.e., without indulging in word games that are intended to simply bypass the real issues.
_______________________________________
Liberty Education Interview Series
Please encourage your family, friends, and coworkers to listen to the Liberty Education Interview Series. Liberty needs all the support it can get right now.
_______________________________________
To comment on “A Classic O’Reilly Slugfest, Part II”, log in below:
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
This conversation reminds me of Francis Schaeffer and his book, How Then Shall We Live. He stated quite a few years ago, that by forsaking “natural law” (I believe natural law must find its roots in God’s law or it will ultimately lose its moorings) we place ourselves and culture on shaky ground. Whether our culture is built on governmental policy and law, or the “majority opinion” or “survival of the fittest,” or whatever, without a foundation that has its ultimate determiners built upon the ultimate of God’s law, man is left to determine his own future and governance of action. Of course, as George Wald has said, if indeed “man is a random collection of molecules in the universe,” then it doesn’t ultimately matter. It’s everyone out for him/herself, “eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”
Thanks for your provocative and stimulating articles!
Greg Ericks
Hear hear! Mr. Ringer! Hear Hear!
I’m aggressively pro life. However, if the woman wants to abort the child and is willing to find a doctor to do it, then it can be done. However, both of them should be arrested and brought before the court for charges of premeditated murder. I think that in this day of hundreds of different birth control medications and devices for women and the ease of obtaining condoms, there is simply no excuse for an unplanned pregnancy.
Yes, the majority of the burden is on the woman, but biology did that and there’s no way around it. Therefore, the woman should be the person to make sure there is no possibility of conception. Being drunk doesn’t count. Calling the child a parasite, fetus, blob of cells, doesn’t change the fact that it’s (if left to develop) going to be someone’s mother, sister, friend, wife.
Of course, I’m probably preaching to the choir here.
I don’t approve of killing the doctors that perform this procedure unless it’s under the rule of law but, I can certainly understand someone feeling strongly enough to do it. Similar to shooting Stalin in the back given the chance.
I have always found it interesting that performing an abortion on a woman who has gotten pregnant on accident is acceptable, yet if you were to suggest terminating the pregnancy of a breeding dog, those same people would come after you howling for your blood. Are we to then understand that people are less important than animals?
Dear Mr. Ringer,
I want to thank you for your ‘VOICE OF SANITY”, it is wonderful. I do not always agree with you on certain things but you shine in a world where men refuse to “step out” and say what needs to be said. Please keep up the good work and maybe, just maybe your seed of oratory will land on fertile soil, take root and grow.
There are two kinds of people in this world, those that anoint and those that embalm. Need I say more?
If you want absolute existential proof as to whether a fetus is a human being or not, ask a woman who is not pregnant why she does not present herself for an abortion.
Please don’t laugh. Think about it a second.
The arguments for and against abortion always seem to include the claim that it is murder. I won’t debate that issue, since it would require that I answer the question of when life begins. I am not qualified to make that determination. I doubt that you are, either, although you may hold a strong opinion on the matter.
My response to abortion comes from a different perspective. I am a firm adherent of personal responsibility. The time to decide whether or not to have children is before you engage in sex!
Responsible creators visualize the outcome of their actions, and act in accordance with a plan that will produce positive results, not unintended consequences. There is no excuse for an unplanned pregnancy, unless the woman was the victim of rape.
So, if you don’t want children, use birth control – first. If you are still opposed to birth control, practice abstinence. Abortion is an extreme measure that should not be considered lightly, especially since it is so easily avoidable by simply acting responsibly.
Now, an admonishment to those of you who advocate the passage of laws to enforce what you believe to be God’s Will. If you believe that God wants you to stop people from having abortions then, by all means, talk to people you know who may be considering it! But do not act as if you are God’s only servant on earth. If you live in Los Angeles for example, why would you believe that the same God that asked for your assistance would require you to affect someone in Boston? Doesn’t God know anyone in Boston? Where is your faith?
And, if you succeed in outlawing abortion, causing some woman in Boston to give birth to a daughter she does not want, will you be responsible for that child’s happiness and well being? You are responsible in part for her very existence, but you will have nothing else to do with her until she grows up and gets pregnant. Then, you will interfere in her life a second time.
Who gave you that right?
God gave all of us Free Will. The best way to influence people’s will is one-on-one, not by coercion of an entire populace through more laws. Talk to those within your sphere of influence, and trust that others will do the same in theirs. You can help reduce the number of abortions performed if you approach this one mind – one soul – at a time.
Of course, you could also reduce the abortion rate if you encouraged responsible people to practice birth control, instead of condemning it.
One last question, because I have always wondered about this. If you oppose abortion because you truly believe it to be murder, how do you rationalize your support for war?
RR,
This is a tough one for me. I was adopted as a baby, and had my natural mother been pro-choice (or had the times been different in the late 50′s) I might never have been born at all.
Many years ago, I ‘hooked-up’ with a woman who ultimately became pregnant due to what I can only legitimately say (today) was my personal failing to use adequate anti-pregnancy protection. She subsequently had an abortion, which I helped finance.
At the time, I felt a rather large commitment had been avoided, and I was grateful that she felt the same way.
I’m not proud of that period of my life today, abeit still thankful I wasn’t forced to pay eighteen years of child support for a child I neither wanted nor had the ability to support in any reasonable fashion at that time – and especially with a ‘fling’.
I wouldn’t be inclined to make the same decision today; nor could I even attempt to justify my actions as I did then. From today’s perspective, I realize my actions actually killed a human being.
I can’t change my past – my only hope for ‘atonement’ is to learn from my youthful errors, and not repeat them.
I’d urge any younger person to think – truly think – about their actions prior. The regrets and remorse you feel many years on won’t be obvious at the time – but they will be a part of you forever…
JVE
By the so called “Supreme” Court changing the premise of what constitutes a “human being”, they opened the door for further definitions and legal declarations of what constitutes a “human being”. What about the old and infirm, the mentally ill, and those that society may now declare to be useless to the health and prosperity to the gene pool and a society overall? How is it that self declared “progressives” actually retrograde back in their thinking and political beliefs on a failed and impoverishing political philosophy of communism that killed over 100 million people in the 20th Century, and then have the delusional belief to include the word “progress” in their belief system? It’s progressive to return to the godless human secularist belief matrix where the state holds all authoritarian power to decided the validity and limitations of basic human rights and thus to declare who can be considered an asset to the state as well as a liability to that all powerful state?
This current American scenario of the redefinition of concepts, is a page right out of the Orwellian literature of how authoritarian governments control their people by education that population to accept the opposite concept as the meaning of the original word,
“War is Peace;
Freedom is Slavery;
Ignorance is Strength.”
“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes an act of rebellion.”
(George Orwell)
Since the American education system has become government directed and conceived, and this propagandizing has been indoctrinating and imprinting young minds with the agenda that sustains and promotes the premises of that government in setting the standards for what passes as morality and justice, American is undeniably in a decaying orbit towards an eventual forfeiture of our right to even dissent and
publicly speak out against the policies and
authoritarian decrees of our government. To even discuss issues and topics such as this in public forums in the near future, could conceivably be declared “treasonous” and an act of rebellion against the state.
I recently watched a film by Ben Stein entitled ‘Expelled..No Intelligence Allowed’ which clearly showed how the education system and state has shut down even the intellectual right to have academic discussions on topics not approved by the state, and those educators who violated this “unwritten” but clearly enforced mandate, were summarily dismissed one way or another.
By not speaking out now, defiantly and loudly, against this academic and governmental closing down of all free speech and debate on issues that are found to be against the approved line of discourse and debate, we then automatically empower and embolden the entrenched authorities to strengthen their stranglehold on people by the restricting the discussion of ideas.
”Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” (Josef Stalin)
Between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalist who won.?
The words “Constitution” and “Founding Fathers” are put forth as if everyone knows what the original intent was at the moment. The long term goal of the Constitution was to last maybe 20 years-Thomas Jefferson.
“Cracks in the Constitution” by Ferdinand Lundberg, explores who the men where who created it and how it was used despite what was said. How it was used tells more than the nostalgia of the remakers of history. Our understanding may be unrelated to the facts.
Where as:
1) The Constitution puts no limits on the United States Government.
2) Conveys unlimited taxing powers.
3) Conveys unlimited power to raise armies to use anywhere.
4) Uses the Bill of Rights as window dressing to thwart the will of the people.
Now this is errie; either I copied you, you copied me, or we have a classic case of “great minds think alike”.
Just for the record, the misleading term “progressive” is a misnomer, and nothing more that a movement in advocating a return to what is in reality, a regressive and old form of communistic style government, that has utterly failed everywhere it’s been implemented by a gradual or coup d’etat totalitarian rule.
Implying an advancement forward of a political philosophy by using the word “progress” is just another way the insidious left uses words and concepts as acts of intellectual legerdermain, to fool mostly young people who refuse or who are unable to clearly think through how tired old ideas are being repackaged to once again be marketed and sold to a new and unsuspecting potential audience.
I agree with Mr. Ringer about stopping abortion as the first step to returning to a civlized socity. Though I would like to add this ” We endure the tyranny of goverment because we can not govern ourselves. ” Thomas Paine.
The eternal issue that is rarely addressed surrounding abortion is the public acceptance of single parent families. I was reminded recently of the issue by a discussion regarding the “lost children” of Australia, a generation of children forcibly removed from their Mothers for adoption regardless of the Mother’s wishes. Similar attitudes remain today. Greater acceptance, greater options for single Mother’s, fewer abortions, late term or otherwise.
Hmmm… so removing the choice of women to determine whether or not they continue any given pregnancy will make America more “civilized”??? I notice it is largely men commenting on this issue. NO woman really wants a late-term abortion. I understand this process is extremely painful and unpleasant. They won’t just wake up one day, and decide a late-term abortion might be on the agenda. There will have been many hours, days, or months of agonizing before they reach the conclusion that an abortion is their choice; you men haven’t carried a fetus to term, delivered a baby, and then given it up for adoption, either, or you wouldn’t be so quick to suggest that as a option. For the record, the terminology is correct–it’s really only a collection of cells, a fetus, a POTENTIAL human being, until it is developed enough to be viable outside the womb. Only then, does it become a baby.
“For the record, the terminology is correct–it’s really only a collection of cells, a fetus, a POTENTIAL human being, until it is developed enough to be viable outside the womb. Only then, does it become a baby.”
Mile54–Have you stopped to read your words to realize how Orwellian they are? This is straight out of science fiction. What you’re describing is more akin to a tumor. And you declare it with the certainty of a zealot with not a trace of introspection.
It proves the point that the attitudes of the pro-abortion crowd have become hardened beyond reason. Isn’t this what the Nazis were both feared and despised for?
If a pregnant woman gets drunk, falls and that fall results in a miscarriage, she should be charged with involuntary manslaughter, right?