American Exceptionalism--A History of Choice

Constitutional Guardian ^ | 6/17/10 | Nancy Tengler

[timesthattrymenssouls]

"In politics, the names of things are more important than what they are." Gustave Le Bon

Gustave Le Bon was a French social psychologist whose speciality was the study of crowd psychology. So powerful were his theories that Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini studied his work. These political leaders understood that controlling the psychology of the masses was critical to their acquisition and maintenance of power.

Le Bon articulated what most politicians understand instinctively. It's all about the messaging. If we call a horrendous $787 billion dollar spending bill a Stimulus bill, people will be, if not happy, mollified. If we set out to Reform health care, the task moves out of the political and into the noble. Reform implies there is a problem and it will be fixed.

Which brings me to Choice. Choice represents everything great about America. We have heretofore lived in a land where liberty is honored and cherished. We can choose where we live, what we study, what occupation or business venture we want to pursue, who we vote for, what car we drive, in short, Americans are given the freedom to choose.

So why is it then that the pro-Choice movement with all their empathy for a women's right to choose, demonstrates absolutely no regard for the human life under discussion. Where else in our society do we argue for one person's rights without even the slightest consideration for an other's? Animals have rights. Criminals have rights. Terrorists now have rights. Why is it that the human life conceived by and carried by a woman has no rights?

The only way this argument has become palatable is because the destruction of an innocent life is not called Murder, it is called Choice.

But words mean something and I have become increasingly troubled by the willingness of many to ignore the true meaning of the word Choice while repeating the politicized meaning, the mantra if you will: "Choice? Yes, I am for Choice, absolutely. Choice is good."

Good for whom I wonder?

[DrC]

Do those favoring “choice” support:
a) the “choice” of a parent to kill a one-year old with Downs syndrome (on grounds that they needed to let the child be born and live some period of time so that they could properly evaluate the benefits and costs of what life would be for and with such a child)?
b) the “choice” of a parent to have consensual sexual relations with a 13-year old (on grounds that it would be less traumatic and more educational for their child to have their first sexual intercourse with a loving/caring parent rather than subject them to all the risks of having this experience with a peer whose sexual inexperience/ignorance and/or psychological issues might result in their child being traumatized?)
c) the “choice” of a pet owner to have sexual relations with their pet (on grounds that so long as they are gentle and loving, this would be an enjoyable rather than exploitive experience for the pet: just one more domain in which to demonstrate their “love”).

The common denominator in all these situations is that the non-parent party involved is not presumed to have the capacity to make a mature adult choice and the party making the choice has the legal/ethical responsibility to make a choice that is in the best interests of that party. However, as the vignettes illustrate, the parent having such responsibility also has their own self-interest at stake. There is no guarantee that when the best interests of a child/pet collide with the self-interest of the parent/caretaker, that the decision made by the adult will necessarily be in the self-interest of the non-adult.

Thus, even if 99% of parents/caretakers can be relied upon to set aside their own interests entirely and make a judgment that truly would reflect the self-interest of those under their care, it would be imprudent for society to give such parents unfettered “choice.” Such a rule would permit those under their care to be exploited 1% of the time without any recourse. Thus, it would be safer for society to set default rules biased in favor of those lacking the judgment to decide rationally for themselves. Otherwise, society is abandoning its responsibility to protect individuals from harm.

But as you note, its wholly inconsistent to require a balancing of rights in the “choice” cases cited above and not require some similar balancing test in the case of abortions.

[marron]

"Choice? Yes, I am for Choice, absolutely. Choice is good."

Yes, exactly, thats the sleight of hand. Substitute "killing babies" for choice and it doesn't sound so chirpy.

"Killing babies? Yes, I am for killing babies, absolutely."

They'll say, of course, that they aren't for killing babies, just for making sure you have the right to kill yours if you want to. Still doesn't sound very chirpy.