Sunday, January 23, 2011

Abortion Rights and Why Obama is a Poor Leader

Here’s Obama’s statement on abortion rights.

“Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women's health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.”

Obama does not mention individual rights which is based on property rights which is the fundamental principle governing the right of a woman to her own body and its fetus until it is metaphysically an independent being. (And, the fundamental principle upon which our country is set up.) Rather, he says the fundamental principle is that the government should not “intrude on private family matters.” But if this is a fundamental principle, then one should not intrude on the private family matters of the Muslim honor killers, right? Or one should not intrude into the private family matters of families where a child is locked up in the basement for weeks, right? Or one should not intrude into the private family matters where there a house full of cats, rats or dogs that have become a threat to human life beyond the confines of the person involved, right?

Notice that Obama’s principle is collectivist. The term family refers to a group, not an individual. So, in this seemingly benign statement, he complete overthrows the right of a woman or a man or any individual to his own body – to his life. He overthrows you and me and every person’s right to exist as an individual.

The reason Obama can’t lead is because Obama can’t think in a powerful modern way. His thinking is actually pre-modern. The Enlightenment, the beginning of the modern world, was based on the fact that reason, the method by which a human mind operates, was discovered to be man’s basic means of survival. Out of this came the United States, the only country on the face of the earth set up on the idea that every man has a mind and he should be free to use and depend on it as his basic tool of survival. The reason that Individual Rights is so important is because it frees the human mind. (And because the human mind has generally been free here, the US has prospered and become the richest nation in the world.)

Prior to the Enlightenment – which began in Scotland and then England – man was seen and dealt with as part of a group. Until then the aristocrat and the serf were the two forms human life took and one was in one group or the other. (There were other groups who were outside this axis of power/no power. Traders and Church people being two. But they accounted for a pretty small number of people.) Although trade happened, it wasn’t seen in the way it is now that the individual mind has been set free. Obama, a collectivist and in particular, a socialist - as compared to some earlier forms of group think such as tribes, family clans, etc. – is of a mind that ran the world prior to the Enlightenment. This is why he bows to kings and other leaders and such. It’s his “pre-individual” obeisance to the collectivist, “rulers-of-men” mindset.

The modern view of human being although of European origin is not “white” nor European per se, although I hear black historians portraying it as if the “white man” is its distinguishing characteristic. (When I hear this, I hear a man wanting to return to the pre-modern view of man – a basically ignorant being that can be controlled easily through fear and guilt and be riled up to become dominant over the white man.) The discovery of what is true of man applies to all human beings. What we are faced with with Obama is whether we are going to go back to a pre-reason view of man where he had no choice but to dominate or be dominated by other men, or are we going to deal with each other as individuals who offer us their view of the world and what they see is going on. The success of the US, which O does not like, is apologizing for at every opportunity, and is looting and redistributing its wealth, is a result of the individual being set free and protected in his right to use his own mind. That really is all it is.

So when I hear Obama speak as he does, if I want to be generous I can say that, at best, he is saying something he might say at the beginning of his search for a proper principle. Why this supposedly Constitutional scholar puts this kind of thing into the public discourse doesn’t make sense unless one grasps where Obama is coming from. Neither proper thinking nor the values which honor every individual human being call to him. Neither are his values. As a consequence, he has the whole country in an uproar. He, day in and day out is trying to lay on us that which we are not. He’s trying to force mankind back into a bygone paradigm. By his lack of values which honor the individual and clear principles, he sews the seeds of distrust and argument among the people. How can we trust each other if we, as individuals, have no existence in his mind? Who knows what he will unleash next (and he’s already done lots of damage to us) that will violate our rights?

A good leader could go a long way to quiet things down. However, that leader will not be Obama. I am persuaded he is not capable of such a task given that his orientation is that of a pre-reason collectivist, a community organizer, a troublemaker by another name. He does not care about the plight of any individual person.

Why he would want to make trouble is another topic. Read Radical-in-Chief by Stanley Kurtz and you will understand what has motivated Obama for the whole of his life. Community Organizer has been the means for what he is up to.

2 comments:

THE FLAME KEEPER said...

Given O's reasoning, if a family decided to force their daughter, e.g., to have a child by restricting her to their supervision, then she would not have the right to the use and disposal of her own body and get an abortion even if she wanted it. This is why O's principle is a sham. There is no objectivity to it.

Robert said...

Fundamentally, the President seems to be of the opinion that since he is the leader of the free world, his view on what makes up fundamental principles must be the right view. He thinks he need merely decide what are the important fundamental principles and that decision of his makes them fundamental. To him there is no such thing as a universal principle that applies for all time. He is simply too great to be stopped by what have been called universal fundamental principles. When you consider that in the past, pre-Obama, the only intellectual group that defended a woman's right to choose on the foundation of individual rights was the liberal movement. This means that Obama has regressed the progressive/liberal movement (as well as our nation), to a time before even the concept of national rights were considered fundamental...long before the last century...almost before imperial Roman times. This is how far backwards he has taken humanity. I only ask you to read about the corruption rampant in imperial Rome in order to realize that this is where he is taking us...on a whole host of other issues too.