We often use the terms “legal” and “moral” as synonyms. But “moral” and “legal” are not the same thing. They often are in a Representative Republic (again, putting aside the abomination of legalized abortion in the United States that even some “progressive” religious leaders condone).

But it is also true that other morally-neutral factors enter into the making of laws as well. “Fairness” is a concept that can have a great impact on policy decisions, but it is neither a moral or immoral concept in and of itself. Fairness can be used to justify any action depending upon the politically-motivated assumptions of its proponents. Set-aside quotas for minorities are often viewed through the prism of “fairness.” Instituting quotas favoring one group means automatically discriminating against another. But if the quotas are seen as a way to cure past evils, then they can be explained as a “fair” way to treat a difficult situation; just as counting slaves as three-fifths of a human being was seen as a “fair” way to deal with another difficult situation.

All this is tied into the relativistic concept of “rights”. For example, Liberal Relativist thinking states emphatically that women have a Right to Choose what to do with their own body. This includes foreign bodies attached to them by a placenta.

If this right does indeed exist, then it isn’t a stretch to conclude that abortion must be a “common choice.” If not, banning abortions wouldn’t affect anything. For example, anyone can choose to kill themselves. They can use a gun, buy pills, sit in a running car in a closed garage, or jump in front of a train. The opportunities are endless, and can be exercised at will. But in America, no one has a “Right” to kill themselves. Attempting suicide is illegal in most states. The only way to beat the rap is to succeed; otherwise you end up in the custody of the state for a few days observation — or maybe a lot longer.

Both suicide and abortion deal with an individual’s choice about their own body. Moreover, neither action is said to harm another human being because abortionists don’t consider the thing they kill to be human life. And yet, the state gives “Rights” to one action, but not to the other.

Since there are no marches on Washington or other demonstrable actions that demand rights for the oppressed suicide-attempters in America, I can only conclude that it must not be a very popular choice compared to such things as the Right to Vote, the Right to Free Speech, and the Right to Kill That Thing Growing Inside Your Belly Before The Twentieth Week — all of which have strong, vocal movements behind them.

Simply reading a newspaper or watching your neighbors go about their lives will quickly point out at least three more rights Americans hold dear: the Right to Party and Have a Good Time, the Right to Run Up Large Charge Account Bills and Then Declare Bankruptcy, and the Right to Download Music Free on The Internet.

These aren’t just options or opportunities that theoretically exist, like the option to wear slacks or shorts depending on the weather. Pass laws that limit or take away any of these “rights” and you’ll get a march on Washington that will rival Dr. King’s. People care about these rights; not just isolated individuals here and there, but millions of people throughout the country. Although these genetic rights seem to manifest themselves most strongly among high school and college-age hormonally active human males, people of all ages and sexes seem drawn to these rights. We can all point to enough personal experiences observing overweight 50-year old men driving around town in a brand new Porsche with a 22-year old trophy wife at their side, or read the newspapers about the rise in bankruptcy filings under Republican administrations. And then there’s that song or two you asked your twelve-year old nephew to download from a share file that paid no royalties to the composer.

Attempts to “limit fun,” force people to manage their financial affairs responsibly, and/or start charging them for using the Internet have routinely met with loud, wailing, hand-wringing howls. This isn’t some isolated group we hear screaming, it’s your neighbors, friends, and even your family. And perhaps you too on occasion.

But the simple fact that one group (however large and vocal) may want to do something — and want it really badly — doesn’t mean that all people want or demand it. If it was a fundamental human need, there wouldn’t be any question about it. As vocal as these advocates might be, they need to be balanced against a larger number of people who are interested in having children and raising a family, pursuing a successful career, managing their and the country’s finances responsibly, and paying for what they want instead of scamming the system.

Like the previous examples, though, these things are no more “rights” than the right to turn on red is a “right.” They are felt strongly, and to some people may even manifest themselves as a genetic disposition (fun times and alcoholism, for example), but they are not universally shared by all mankind, which if true would elevate them to the level of a universal moral imperative.

But what about other, more serious human rights? Let’s look at the U.S. Bill of Rights. As important and deeply ingrained as the Right to Vote and Right to Free Speech are in Western society, I still can’t elevate either of these to a universal principle. Even after the collapse of Soviet communism and the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, there are still a large number of people in these countries who reject any notion of Western-style democracy. Russians live in a quasi-capitalist thugocracy, and in Afghanistan and Iraq a lot of people still take their marching orders from the local Ayatollah.

“Rights” connected with personal freedom may tie back to certain moral principles, but it is these principles — such as a basic respect for human life — that are universal, not a free press or other rights embodied in the U.S. Constitution. A true appreciation for democracy is something that evolves with thought, debate, and cultural evolution. I have high hopes for democracy taking a firm root in the Middle East thanks to the courage and leadership of President Bush. But neither he nor I, nor maybe even my children, will live to see it work as well as I believe it can. Which means, not even the U.S. Bill of Rights has intrinsic universal appeal, because some of these concepts require a different cultural and social structure to be in place before they can truly be understood and flourish.

Russia today is a perfect example of both the potential of, and cultural/historical barriers to, Western-style democracy taking hold and prospering. Afghanistan and Iraq will require decades of additional preparation to pave the way for thinking about Thomas Paine instead of “giving pain” when operating in a political environment.

Which puts the lie to any suggestion that abortion is a universal right. Rather, it is a means to a political objective perpetrated on the United States by a logic that gives more weight to man-made laws and the culturally-dependent notions of privacy and fairness, than it does to basic human dignity. It’s the perfect, morally-relativistic logic gone completely out of control, where the focus becomes the mother’s desires, as opposed to what is in the best interest of another human being’s life.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/25/what-kind-of-car-would-jesus-drive-to-take-his-girlfriend-to-an-abortion-clinic/