The tyranny of majority rule

The tyranny of a pure democracy versus the respect for minority’s rights found in a constitutional republic can best be found in the current abortion issue. Here we have the use of polls to determine the majority rule:

"For all the furor over abortion in the past 35 years, Americans have remained remarkably steadfast in their opinions" on the issue, a USA Today editorial states. According to Gallup poll data, about 54% of Americans in May said that abortion should be legal under certain circumstances -- precisely the same number as in a 1975 Gallup poll -- and an additional 28% said abortion should be legal in all cases. Regardless, abortion-rights opponents are "no less determined to outlaw the practice," the editorial says.

The danger…51% of the people can vote to legally kill the members of the 49%. America was set up as a constitutional republic where the rights of the minority are protected. Today the right to life of the under the age of birth minority have been taken away by the use of a democracy. The use of natural law, where right and wrong is absolute, has been replaced by the humanists moral relativism, where right and wrong is determined by the majority. So we use polls to determine right and wrong.

The absolute truth is the taking of innocent life by another for the sake of that person’s convenience is dead wrong.

Comments

[Sam]

So you were against Prop 8 in CA? The bill codifying discrimination against a minority based on majority vote?

By the way, since murder is a crime, 51% voting to kill 49% wouldn't get anywhere. It would be called as an illegal move.

[Steve Sibson]

Prop 8 was to correct the courts for ruling against natural law...our rights come from "Our Creator".

My point is murder could become legal in regard to some kind of minority, such as abortion. I quess "could" should be changed to "has".

[Tracy Saboe]

Benjamin Franklin ones said, "Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for lunch. A Republic is a well armed sheep contesting the vote."

Tracy Saboe

[Sam]

Never mind that the state's laws are not based Biblicly (1st amendment, treaty of Tripoly, and the Letters to the Danbury Ministers), and separation of church and state issues;

The tyrany of the majority only seems to bother you if the majority doesn't like your view. If the majority deciding on weather to give the same rights as others to a minority agrees with your view, well then it's just fine. Trying to write discrimination into a state constitution is unamerican, period. If it wasn't, we would still have miscegination laws (also "Biblicly supported" according to oppenents at the time), separate lunch counters and possibly slavery (OK, that last one was a bit of hyperboly...)

You want to talk abortion? Fine, but the "tyrany of the majority" is hardly the way to go. (Darn, I thought I swore to not comment on that subject again....)

[Steve Sibson]

Sam,

Just because the “institution of the church” means America is not founded on Biblical principles?

And we do have to be careful of those who misread the meaning of the Bible. It does not mention slavery, but it does not promote it. I am happy that you bring into the discussion topics found in the Bible, as it is important that we study its meaning and have a serious discussion about it.

It was the Second Great Awakening that was the spring board that finally brought freedom to the slaves. It was Christians who rallied for the cause, just as we do today to free the pre-born.

[adr]

I will let Ayn Rand make the point:

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

[Steve Sibson]

The Preamble of the constitution states:

“secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”

Ayn Rand’s point is unconstitutional.

And scientific proof of DNA makes it clear that the fetus is not part of the woman’s body, but instead a distinct and difference human being….a member of America’s posterity.

Destroying what God knitted in the womb is not moral. Abortion is unconstitutional and immoral.

[Sam]

Ayn Rand also taught Greenspan, the man who is only realizing that his endorcement of her free-for-all attitude led to the current economic crisis. Anything that comes from Rand and her Randoids is suspect as the ideals professed show no compassion to anyone at all. Stomp on anyone you can because you can?

I may not agree with Steve on abortion issues, but the cult of the individual is just bad news. I agree with Rand on nothing.