{"id":6743,"date":"2023-10-26T09:10:37","date_gmt":"2023-10-26T13:10:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dahlman.online\/?p=6743"},"modified":"2023-10-26T09:10:41","modified_gmt":"2023-10-26T13:10:41","slug":"right-to-live","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dahlman.online\/index.php\/2023\/10\/26\/right-to-live\/","title":{"rendered":"Right to Live"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Right to Life<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Ohio is embroiled in controversy.\u00a0\u00a0Issue One, an amendment to the Ohio State Constitution, guarantees women the right to make their own determination about their own bodies, including ending pregnancy.\u00a0\u00a0The words of the actual amendment (not the \u201csynopsis\u201d on the ballot, authored by opponents of the Issue) echo the long accepted\u00a0Roe v Wade<\/em>\u00a0logic.\u00a0\u00a0The state government has a duty to \u201cprotect human life\u201d, and that duty grows with the growth of a fetus.\u00a0\u00a0When the fetus is viable, able to be born and survive with assistance, the state has the power to regulate medical care.\u00a0\u00a0To end a pregnancy after that point, a physician would have to determine that either the fetus is not viable, or, the health or life of the mother is at risk.\u00a0\u00a0Those are the only allowable reasons for abortion after five and half months of pregnancy, under the\u00a0Roe<\/em>\u00a0logic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The core issue is, and always has been, when does a fetus become a human life (rather than a potential human life).  It is about balancing the rights of that fetus against the rights of the mother.  This is the moral argument of my lifetime.  I was seventeen when Roe<\/em> was decided, and sixty-six when the Dobbs<\/em> decision overturned it, sending the determination back to the states.  It was a core discussion in every Government class I taught, and many of the political campaigns I helped.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I hope that the people of the State of Ohio will determine that this argument is one that individual women have the right to determine themselves, not the \u201cold men\u201d of the state legislature.\u00a0\u00a0My wife and I will vote next week, adding our voices to the call for individual choice over government mandate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Right to Live<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

What we won\u2019t get to vote on, here in Ohio or anywhere else, is the right to stay alive.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

No one is arguing that a living, breathing, existing person is a \u201clife\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0Yet my right to live, and yours, relies on whim, on pure luck.\u00a0\u00a0We, the United States, are a Nation under attack;\u00a0\u00a0and it\u2019s not from Hamas, or Iran, or even Russia.\u00a0\u00a0Last night demonstrated the threat:\u00a0\u00a0in Lewiston, Maine, a man used an assault rifle to kill at least fifteen people and wound dozens more.\u00a0\u00a0He attacked two locations: a local pub, and a bowling alley on \u201cteen night\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0The shooter is still at large, a threat, still well armed and obviously ready to kill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many in the United States argue that women should not have a choice about abortion.  But many of those same people argue that it is an \u201cAmerican Right\u201d to have a weapon of war.  This isn\u2019t a hunting rifle, not designed to hunt deer or elk (or bear in Maine).  This weapon, and the more than twenty million in the United States like it (Forbes<\/a>), is designed to kill people in battle.  And beyond that, the ammunition used in assault rifles is designed to create massive wounds, requiring the enemy to deplete their fighting force to care for the injured.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That force was aimed at teenagers bowling\u00a0\u00a0at Sparetime Recreation last night, and at patrons of\u00a0Schemengee\u2019s Bar and Grille.\u00a0\u00a0Lewiston is a college town, home of Bates College.\u00a0\u00a0When the literal smoke clears, and the final \u201cbutcher\u2019s bill\u201d is written, the casualties are likely to be much higher.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ban Discussion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

But we are not allowed to talk about banning assault weapons.  We are not supposed to use the \u201cright to life\u201d argument against a weapon of war.  The automatic response is, loudly and boldly, \u201cSECOND AMENDMENT<\/strong>\u201d.   The reality of our partisan divide is that assault weapons represent the minority \u201cright\u201d to overthrow the government; the right to apply their view against the vast majority of Americans, by force if necessary. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00a0How embedded is that in their current ideology?\u00a0\u00a0Look at yesterday\u2019s events before the Lewiston shootings:\u00a0the Republican Party; the Party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower; choose a man who wanted to overthrow the 2020 election to be Speaker of the House of Representatives.\u00a0\u00a0He is now second in line for the Presidency.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0And he is a staunch opponent of any form of gun control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is nothing in the Second Amendment that prohibits controlling assault rifles.\u00a0\u00a0At least, that\u2019s the interpretation of the past two-hundred and thirty-five years of Supreme Court decisions.\u00a0\u00a0What this current Court, dominated by the same extreme ideologic majority might say, is an open question.\u00a0\u00a0But the power of the\u00a0IDEA\u00a0<\/strong>that the Constitution somehow guarantees the \u201cright\u201d to overthrow the government is a real threat to our America.\u00a0\u00a0It challenges our individual \u201cright to live\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you question that, talk to the parents of the murdered kids at the bowling alley.\u00a0\u00a0Some still don\u2019t even know yet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guns<\/h5>\n\n\n\n