Individual Freedom and Responsibility

　　There are two sets of powers in any government. Though these powers may overlap in some areas like a Venn diagram, in others, these powers are mutually exclusive. They are the powers that may be exercised by the government, and the powers that may be exercised by the people.

　　All of those powers which may be exercised by the government are ceded to the government from the people by an agreement among the people in a society whose governing structure is supported by rational-legal legitimacy - a social contract. The people may decide which powers are ineffective on an individual basis, such as the power of national defense or the power to protect rights, and grant those powers on a collective basis to the government in order to ensure their effect.

　　The most important of these powers of government to the individual is the power to protect rights. We give this power to the government to avoid the tyranny of the strong over the weak, or the many over the few. We also limit the powers of the government to ensure that it does not then become that strong or majority force from which we sought to protect ourselves.

　　The more power we grant to the government, the less power we then have unto ourselves. The stronger we make the government, the weaker we become. The more we submit to government mandate, the less choice we have for ourselves. In a country where we claim liberty to be one of our most sacred rights, we ought to ensure that the government has as little power over our personal choices as is possible.

　　Therefore, the power of the government concerning the restriction of the behavior of its citizens ought to be extremely limited, and the responsibility for success should then be on the shoulders of each individual. The government should have no power to make our choices for us, for this inhibits our right to liberty and impairs our right to the pursuit of happiness. Because we are each unique, no universal set of solutions will ensure success on an individual basis. Because we each have different abilities, talents, needs, and desires, the government cannot effectively direct each of us on the best path to success. Neither have they the cognizance nor foresight - being a group of men themselves - to predict what set of solutions will effect an overall collective success, nor should we trust them to do so.

　　Given that the government has the power and responsibility to protect our rights and should have no power to interfere with our free will and an obligation to refrain from doing so, the government should avoid in all cases legislating on the basis of morality. This includes any perceived moral obligation to universal health care as well as to preserve the sanctity of marriage or any other one might name. In both the social and the moral, the government should allow for each of us to make our own decisions, our own successes, and our own failures, and it should hold each of us accountable to the consequences of those decisions. In this way, the government may ensure that each of us maintains completely our right to choice and our liberty.

The Right to Choose

Our three greatest rights are the rights to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness. Each of these progresses from the one before it, and the right to life is our greatest and most sacred right. The right to liberty – the right to choose – is, just as the right to life, given to us by our creator. Choice is essential to our human nature, as God has given us free will. As such, our right to choose can never be legitimately abridged by any government. However, as all men are created equal, our own right to choose can never infringe on the rights of any other individual, and just as God holds us ultimately responsible for the choices we make in life, so must a government hold its citizens responsible for their choices. For every action, there is a consequence, and the government must not be in the business of absolving its citizens from the consequences of their actions.

We can make several assertions based on these basic rights about what we can or cannot do without government interference. Among these, we may assert that a woman has the right to make choices concerning her own body. We may assert that a woman has the right to choose when she wishes to reproduce. However, to make the assertion that a woman has the right to an abortion does not logically follow from these conclusions. First, though a woman has the right to choose concerning her own body, a child, no matter the stage of its development, is a life distinct from its mother’s with all of the characteristics thereof. Therefore, the mother may make no decision that infringes on the child’s right to life. Second, a woman absolutely has the right to choose when she wishes to reproduce, and she makes that decision the minute she decides to have sexual intercourse. It is absolutely fallacious to claim or even to imply that rational human beings are incapable of making the choice to refrain from sexual intercourse merely because it is common in our society to engage in intercourse. Having made the decision to have sex, a woman has made a decision that may result, no matter the precautions taken, in the formation of a life distinct from her own, and she and the man involved in the act both bear the responsibility of that decision should it result in a pregnancy.

There are situations, however, in which a woman may be put into a situation in which she is made pregnant against her will. In situations of rape, a man has made a decision that infringes on a woman’s liberty, and therefore, the woman is not responsible if a life is formed. However, it remains true that the child itself is innocent and has the right to life. In this situation, a State may allow the woman to choose to terminate the pregnancy; however, it is still a heavy choice to make with dire moral implications. Though no one can have the right to mandate in this situation, the woman should be encouraged to bear the child to term, and then, if she is not capable of raising the child for whatever reason, to give it up for adoption.

There is one situation in which an abortion is completely absolved from moral question. If the mother of the child absolutely will die if she bears the child to term and gives birth, she absolutely has the right – but not the obligation – to terminate the pregnancy. No one life is any more precious than any other. Though the child is innocent and has the right to life, so does the mother have the right to life, and she may make the decision to continue to live.

To be pro-life does not imply that one is anti-choice. Quite to the contrary, to be pro-life is to also be both pro-choice and pro-responsibility.