Voting using Baseline Requirement
The litmus test, where a single issue becomes the deciding factor in whether a candidate earns your vote or remains among the competitive candidates, is often seen as an oversimplification of the complex political landscape—usually by people who do not share your goals in life. However, for those who hold deeply personal and moral beliefs, particularly on issues like abortion and its perceived violation of the social contract, as well as fundamental human rights, this method is not only valid but essential. In a world where candidates often present a wide array of positions, applying a litmus test can help voters, especially myself, to focus on the most important issue at hand—protecting life—and ensure that my values are clearly reflected in the political process and applied within society. This baseline is a fundamental starting point that all candidates must work from in order to even be considered.
Abortion is a deeply polarizing issue that transcends other policy concerns. For many voters, a candidate’s stance on this issue is a direct reflection of their moral compass and priorities, influencing how the government will treat its citizens and allow others to do so. When a candidate supports policies that deprive life to the unborn, that stance alone should unapologetically disqualify them from consideration. These candidates do not even deserve the time to review other aspects of their platforms, as their position on such a fundamental issue reveals a profound misalignment with the values of those who believe in the sanctity of life.
The litmus test, in this context, becomes a powerful tool for voters who wish to ensure that their most deeply held beliefs are upheld in government. By focusing on this singular qualification, voters can quickly and effectively narrow down their choices to those candidates who share their commitment to protecting the unborn and upholding the principles of the Constitution. This approach eliminates the need to wade through the noise of campaign rhetoric, allowing voters to make clear, decisive choices that align with their core values.
Moreover, the litmus test can also serve as a motivator for those who might otherwise feel disengaged or disillusioned by the political process. When the decision to vote is framed around such a focused and vital issue, the stakes become clear. Voters who care passionately about the survival of the unborn are more likely to feel a sense of responsibility to participate, knowing that their vote directly impacts the protection of life. This method of decision-making can transform passive observers into active participants, driving higher voter turnout among those who prioritize the defense of the unborn.
In addition, the litmus test ensures that the most critical issues do not get lost in the shuffle of campaign promises and shifting positions. It forces candidates to take a definitive stand against abortion, making it impossible for them to avoid or downplay this crucial topic. For voters who understand that the right to life is the most fundamental of all rights, the litmus test guarantees that their voices are heard and that their values are represented in government.
While some may argue that reducing a candidate’s suitability to a single issue is an oversimplification or overlooking otherwise good candidates, when it comes to a matter as vital as abortion, the litmus test is not just about trust—it is necessary. It empowers voters to protect the unborn by ensuring that only those candidates who share their commitment to life receive their support. In a political landscape filled with complexity and ambiguity, the litmus test offers a clear and focused strategy for making sure that the most important issues are front and center in the electoral process.
"Persons" in the Context of Abortion
The definition of "persons" under the U.S. Constitution as it relates to an in-womb fetus, and how this definition echoes the darkest comparative chapters of our history, including slavery and the treatment of immigrants as our legal system definitions have previously fallen short letting society run rampant.
The Constitutional Context:
The U.S. Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment, guarantees that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The term "person" here is central—it dictates who is entitled to these fundamental rights and protections.
Historical Precedents:
1. Slavery and the Denial of Personhood:
In the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision, the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, were not considered "persons" under the Constitution. This denial of personhood justified the horrific institution of slavery, stripping millions of human beings of their rights, dignity, and humanity.
It took a civil war, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the 13th and 14th Amendments to overturn this ruling and recognize African Americans as "persons" with full constitutional rights.
领英推荐
2. Immigrants and Equal Protection:
In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that even undocumented immigrants are "persons" under the 14th Amendment. This landmark decision emphasized that personhood transcends legal status or citizenship; it is a fundamental recognition of human dignity.
The Current Debate: Abortion and the Personhood of the Unborn:
In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that a fetus is not considered a "person" under the 14th Amendment. This decision provided the constitutional basis for a woman’s right to choose an abortion. However, by excluding the unborn from the category of "persons," we are confronted with a troubling parallel to past injustices.
The Parallels to Slavery and Immigration:
Just as the Dred Scott decision dehumanized African Americans by denying them personhood, Roe v. Wade denies the unborn the same constitutional recognition. The logic that justified slavery—that certain human beings could be excluded from the category of "persons"—is mirrored in the argument that a fetus, despite its potential for life, does not warrant the protections afforded to "persons" under the Constitution.
Similarly, the treatment of undocumented immigrants in Plyler v. Doe highlights that the Constitution’s protection of "persons" is not contingent on legal status, citizenship, or any other condition. Yet, the unborn are excluded from this broad and inclusive definition.
Defense of Common Abortion Rights Arguments:
Proponents of abortion rights argue that a woman's right to bodily autonomy must be paramount. They contend that the right to privacy, as established in Roe v. Wade, allows a woman to make decisions about her own body, including the decision to terminate a pregnancy.
However, this argument often hinges on the assertion that a fetus is not a "person" with its own rights. This is where the ethical and legal tension arises. If we accept the premise that a fetus is a distinct human life, even if not yet fully developed, the denial of personhood becomes deeply problematic. It echoes the same logic used to dehumanize and oppress other groups throughout history.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the question of whether an in-womb fetus constitutes a "person" under the Constitution is not just a legal matter but a moral one. The exclusion of the unborn from the definition of "persons" resonates with the same flawed logic that justified slavery and the denial of rights to immigrants. While the right to choose is an essential component of individual liberty, we must critically examine whether denying personhood to the unborn is consistent with the principles of equality and human dignity that the Constitution seeks to uphold.
Consider whether our current legal framework truly reflects the values of justice and equality that allows us to function as a society without distrust and angst amongst the groups. The lessons of history urge us to be stop denying personhood to any human life, as we are currently repeating past injustices with a new victim
www.caseyarcade.com
.