Mr. Obama snubs annual American March for Life, sheds light on his own, and America’s, rationale for permitting abortion

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/abortion-protesters-lose-presidential-seal/2009/01/23/1232471590633.html

The Sydney Morning Herod ran an interesting little article on Saturday, reporting on how the new American President, Mr. Barack Obama, has snubbed the annual March for Life:

For eight years, marchers had been greeted by a message from President George Bush, who supported their cause and appointed two Supreme Court justices sympathetic to it.

In contrast, Mr Obama issued a statement yesterday reaffirming his support for a woman's right to choose to end her pregnancy.

Even more interesting, though, was what that statement had to say, by implication, about why Mr. Obama upholds the supposed ‘right’ to kills one’s own unborn children:

Roe v Wade, the statement said, "not only protects women's health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters".

Fascinating. The paterfamilias’s right to privacy within and sovereignty over his own household was, of course, the basis for many ancient societies’ tolerance of infanticide, commonly by exposition e.g. tethering the infant to a post in some hostile environment and leaving him or her to die. One might have expected such an ‘advanced’ society as America’s to have moved on from this kind of (dare I say it, MgS?) absolutism, especially since that country’s very Constitution lists man’s rights, in descending order of priority, as being to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. (Note that, as should be well-known, I abhor that liberal and Masonic document, but of course I will uphold one person’s right to life against another’s right to privacy in such “family matters” any day.) A right to privacy clearly comes under either liberty or the pursuit of happiness (both of which the Americans misconceive, though), which are, according to the Americans, subordinate to the right to life, so one might have thought that, when there is a question of a conflict between one person’s very right to life and another’s right to mere privacy, a rigorous investigation would have to be made into whether or not the person is, indeed, entitled to his or her continued earthly existence. Apparently not, according to the august judges in Roe vs. Wade.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. John Chrysostom, Bishop, Confessor, Doctor of the Church, A.D. 2009