Perhaps you have purchased or adopted a dog, rescued a dog even. That dog is yours. If someone harms your dog, they have wronged you and can be taken to court to pay, perhaps even face criminal charges. The dog is your property, and an injustice took place. Under the ideas of John Locke, the state exists to navigate and interpret the injustices that take place. The state is therefore equipped to handle, to whatever capacity the individual state employs, the injustice that takes place. What greater injustice is there than the loss of innocent human life?
Humanization of Animals
If we were to assemble a hierarchy of the value of each animals, dogs would likely rank near the top. After all, the relationship to mankind, through domestication, is the most developed and serves the most functions out of any animal. The trainability of dogs has led to the increase of their value and capacity for humans to have an emotional connection to them. The value we therefore place on our dogs is disproportionately higher than that of other animals.
Our society has humanized animals, most specifically dogs, to rather disturbing levels. Now you do you, for your dog is your property. But the value of a dog is subjectively higher than the value of other items that are also property. For instance, numerous states have laws voiding the liability of someone who rescues a dog from a hotbox car on a hot summer day. You can damage someone’s property to save their property and face no charges.
What if the dog’s owner valued their car window above their own dog? What gives you the right to intervene? What gives the government the right to strip the dog owner the right to sue for damages? What gives the government the right to prosecute animal abuse, if animals are the property of their owners? The anarchist-capitalist crowd has no convincing answer for how animal cruelty can be addressed as they can provide with other crimes. However, the establishment of the state allows the state to address injustices which otherwise could not be interpreted well in a stateless community. Animals are property, but animal cruelty is the result of people abusing their own property for no other cause than cruelty and neglect.
What is the argument for abortion?
The main, remaining, argument for abortion is autonomy. My body my choice. The argument equates abortion to an elective surgery. After all, if they say an unborn fetus is not a person, terminating it is equivalent to Kim Kardashian-West’s butt implants. But the Left can’t describe what “it” is. If it’s not a person, what is it? Rick Santorum got silence in response when he asked this question. Pro abortionist often have not taken their beliefs to their logical conclusion.
Despite science, humans have declared something can be a separate human but not a person until increasingly arbitrary standards such as viability or now birth have been met. But even if a scientifically separate human being is not a moral person, what then is that separate human being? And more importantly, what value does a human being that’s not a person have? My body, my choice. My dog, my choice. Surely a human life is more than a dog’s life even if that human is not the moral equivalent of a person. For mankind is separated from animals, by means of divine creation or the process of evolution; these are two answers to the obvious distinction between man and beast.
Where personhood defines the value of a human being as inherently more than that of an animal, what is the value of a human being that is not a person? Just because a fetus, the pro-abortionists have declared, is not a person, does not mean that the human life does not have value. For if human beings are above animals should that also mean that human life regardless of personhood holds a superior value to animal life? So what then gives you the right to poison this human life? What then gives you the right to inject this human being with a drug that kills it? What then gives you the right to drain the amniotic fluid and dismember the human being as you rip it from the uterus?
Autonomy. That is the answer of the pro-abortion crowd.
Initially I wanted to refer to this as privatized tyranny, but autonomous tyranny is a far better, far more applicable to the realms of animals and slavery. The idea that you can do whatever you want to that which is in your domain, even to the point of tyranny, is autonomous tyranny. Where else do we as a society allow autonomous tyranny to exist? The divine right of parents has long been extinguished. There are limits to parental powers and the need to mitigate the abuse of children necessitates these limits for an injustice has occurred when children are abused. The concept of owning a fellow human being has been eradicated, placing yet another limit on autonomous tyranny. So what remains?
Puppies and unborn babies. No! Because puppies have protections, we prosecute people who abuse puppies. But people who murder unborn babies have committed a far more egregious offense, for the value of human life is greater than that of a puppy whether you accept personhood when human life begins or at some arbitrary, less logically defendable point in development. Yet the argument of autonomy is the only defense these actions have in the face of the injustice committed. But because an injustice has been committed, the duty of the state is to navigate how we deal with the injustice that took place. The duty of the state is not to bankroll these injustices under the guise of healthcare. The state does not exist to accelerate injustices, for in propagating injustice, the state is elevating its own state of existence to one where it can declare what is just or unjust, rewriting the works of nature and natural law.
It is, however, the duty of the state to interpret how society deals with injustice. Among the most difficult are injustices stemming from autonomous tyranny.
We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.
[gravityform id=”2″ title=”true” description=”false”]