the social conscience

 Yesterday I violated Facebooks community standards. I have to sit in the corner for twenty four hours. Fair enough, I did let fly with my opinion using a term that sets off the algorithm. So this morning I have to forgo my digital salutations on that platform. I'll be back after my afternoon nap, refreshed and properly chastised. And yes the topic was Roe V Wade, a topic that does rouse emotions. I got caught up. 

 Unable to amuse myself with pulling the strings of the liberal crowd, a pastime I genuinely enjoy, I was doing a little reading. I ran across this passage and thought to share it here.

“Most of the crimes which disturb the internal peace of society are produced by the restraints which the necessary, but unequal, laws of property have imposed on the appetites of mankind, by confining to a few the possession of those objects that are coveted by many. Of all our passions and appetites, the love of power is of the most imperious and unsociable nature, since the pride of one man requires the submission of the multitude. In the tumult of civil discord, the laws of society lose their force, and their place is seldom supplied by those of humanity. The ardor of contention, the pride of victory, the despair of success, the memory of past injuries, and the fear of future dangers, all contribute to inflame the mind, and to silence the voice of pity. From such motives almost every page of history has been stained with civil blood....”

― Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 1-2

I wonder, are we on the precipice of civil war? The signs are there, the motives exist, and tempers are running hot. One of those motives is "law of property." Remember prior to the civil war in America when slaves were considered property? The law of property insisted on that definition. Indeed the right to life and the ability to take that life, without question, was part and parcel in that. They were property to be bought, sold, traded or disposed of in any fashion the "owner" saw fit. Central to the question of Roe V Wade has to be "property." Is that fetus the property of the woman? Is it her sole property to do with as she pleases? The "my body, my choice" argument.

Property was indeed one of the central causes of the civil war. It was an emotional topic. It did disturb the internal peace of society. And what is the internal peace of society? I'd say it was a stirring of the conscience, the social conscience. Our conscience is what disturbs our internal peace isn't it? With Roe V Wade that is the issue in a nutshell, conscience. To stand by and do nothing, say nothing, is giving tacit approval to whatever is in question. In Roe V Wade it is the conscious choice to terminate a life. here is no escaping that simple fact, the purpose of an abortion is to terminate a life.

In order to restore internal peace we have to satisfy our conscience. Can that be done simply by ignoring the issue altogether, or by presenting justification for that action? The latter is the most frequent way of doing that. I didn't do it, so I'm not guilty. It isn't my job to prevent it. It's none of my business. The majority says it is fine. All reasons for the dismissal of conscience. Our conscience is our personal moral values. It is the thoughts, feelings and beliefs that form the very basis of the core of our existence. It is who we are. Can you escape yourself?

In that passage from Edward Gibbon he says, inflame the mind, and silence the voice of pity. Inflaming the mind is to arouse emotions. To silence the voice of pity. What is that? Pity stems from our conscience. In Roe V Wade what pity is being shown to the infant, to that life? To ease the burden of responsibility for that life, a dismissal of conscience. It's the same as a firing squad. Only in this instance the ones doing the shooting are blindfolded, not the one being shot. The pity is transferred to the shooter, not the target. A transference of pity.

If you support abortion you support that. You are saying the fetus is nothing more than property, to be disposed of as you see fit. The emotional needs of the woman outweigh the life of the child. To say that "material" isn't a life until a designated point, whether it is a heartbeat or movement, is simply a means to justify the action. From the very moment the egg is fertilized life has begun, That is the very definition of the beginning of life! Trust the science.

I do see a society in decline. A gradual shift from a Republic to a Socialist state. Just a little piece at a time. The erosion of the social conscience will be the ultimate end. The founding fathers predicted all of this; they were aware. But it wasn't as a prediction, prediction implies a guess, they had studied history and knew the course. And they too were torn between conscience and pity. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were to define that social conscience. That is the foundation upon which the Republic rests. The people.

Indeed it is as John Adams wrote. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, it is totally inadequate to the governance of any other. James Madison agreed writing, sufficient virtue among men for self government, otherwise nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another. Where is the virtue in Roe V Wade. What moral value is there in that? Terminating the life of another is surely the act of a despot!