This passage was, of course, in contrast to his simple and cogent statement of how representative democracy functioned to legally support a decision to go to war.
I didn't read MichaelAllen
's statement this way at all, Setanta
. Look at it again. He wrote: " Even though I don't oppose abortion, I don't think people should have to help fund abortions if they oppose them.
" In other words, we are not dealing with submission to the will of the majority in cases of policy where one is in the opposition, it is a case where one is entitled to disobey
even after the majority has expressed its will.
I have some qualms about the legality of America's intervention in Iraq, but I concede that my qualms represent a minority view that would likely not be sustained by the courts. Thus I will pay my share of taxes, even though a part of my taxes goes to support what I consider an immoral and illegal war. On this, then, MichaelAllen
and I are in agreement.
Now, assuming that the government funds abortions (I have no idea if this is true or not, but this is something which MichaelAllen
has assumed, and so, for the purposes of argument, I'll accept it as true), the government has made some sort of decision to spend that money. Granted, the courts have been making most of the policy on the issue of abortion, but if there has been some measure, passed by Congress, to fund abortions, then that
decision is as much an expression of the people's will as the decision to go to war.
It is, in other words, not the issue of abortion itself which is in question, it is the issue of the particular funding measure
, enacted by the government, which is in question. And if MichaelAllen
thinks that he can, on the same basis, support the people's will to go to war but not
support the people's will to fund abortions, then he has to come up with a better basis for his position. Simply saying that the former is the result of a "collective decision" whereas the latter isn't just doesn't bear scrutiny.