Abort the IRS

I heard something the other night that just astonished me. Some Christian leaders were talking about abortion, the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, etc. The topic of the “right to privacy” came up and these Christians unanimously upheld the idea that not only is there not a right to privacy in the Constitution, but a right to privacy is not even a desirable thing and would have been opposed by the Founding Fathers.

I’m afraid I called bravo sierra on that one. While I agree that the right to privacy is not explicitly enumerated as is freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and the right to possess military weapons, I believe it is a fundamental aspect of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Further I think the Founders’ assertion of freedom of religion is tantamount to an endorsement of the right to privacy.

Abortion should be opposed on moral and scientific grounds. The beginning of life deserves a scientific definition. It is a biological fact, or should be. Politics should not enter into it. A new, separate individual life begins at conception. Many things may happen along the way to prevent that life from developing fully and completely, but abortion should not be one of those things. The moral argument is simply that once a life has begun, it should be protected. If a woman does not wish to have a baby, there is at least one fool-proof way to avoid it. That’s where “choice” should end. As it is, terminating a human life is a money-maker for abortion clinics. For the careless and imprudent, abortion is last-resort birth control. In any case, it is not up to the federal government to handcuff the states in this matter. If New York and California want to make abortions “safe and legal”, it is nobody’s business in Texas and Missouri. If South Dakota and South Carolina want to protect the lives of children in the womb, it is nobody’s business in Vermont or New Hampshire. Roe v. Wade was bad law not because the Court’s claim of a right to privacy is bogus but because they were out of their jurisdiction ruling on a state issue.

We’ve had far too many of our rights eroded by do-gooders ignoring that most basic of laws – the law of unintended consequences. Because Bonnie and Clyde used a BAR or the mob had a proclivity for Thompson submachine guns, does not mean that law-abiding citizens should not be able to easily acquire military weapons. Personally, I’m not interested in machineguns, but it ticks me off to no end that I am not be able to have a cheap short-barreled shotgun for fishing trips or killing pests around the farm without jumping through a bunch of ATF hoops.

Arguing against privacy is a wrong road, especially for the religious. There are way too many government agencies nosing in my business as it is. I don’t want the government to have access to my medical records. I hate the fact that I have to report all my financial information to the IRS. I actually happen to agree with the leftists who oppose further inroads into privacy by bureaucrats, but I won’t take them seriously until they join me in wanting the IRS abolished. If we were to go to a simpler, less-intrusive system like the Fair Tax, it would be a huge boon to privacy. The IRS started it, the War on Drugs exacerbated it, and now the War on Terror threatens to make us all criminals for paying with cash. Believe me, the government would be a lot less interested in “money laundering” if they were getting their revenue off sales rather than income.