Many issues are truly subject to state, rather than federal, authority. That’s the essence of our Federalist system of governance.

But regardless of the level, does any government in this country allow the unjustified killing of another human being?

Simple answer: No.

So then the abortion issue really becomes: when does an unborn person become a "human being"?

THAT is the issue the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) should have really addressed in Roe, rather than making up non-existent "rights" to "privacy", because if in this day and age we are going to redefine what the term "human being" means, we have to do that at the national level. SCOTUS was clearly trying to dodge having to assess the scientific and moral implications of their ruling.

If we're going to leave it up to the states, then why did we pass national laws addressing Civil Rights? Was it because Blacks and other minorities were being oppressed by some specific states?

Well, yes, of course it was!

At one time, Blacks were considered no more human than unborn fetuses are today.

I'll be honest, based on my own reconsideration of this issue in writing this essay, I have changed my mind that abortion is a state issue. SCOTUS should have put in the effort to define when a fetus becomes a human being enjoying one of the “unalienable rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, namely: Life.

In essence, what we’re saying right now as a nation is that it’s okay for each individual state to determine for itself the definition of “human being”, which would by logical extension return us to the pre-Civil War era; the Civil War was fought to establish the principle of equal rights for all human beings, uniformly and universally recognized throughout the country.

Moreover, this is the same rationale used by the Nazis to justify not only the Holocaust, but also human experimentation... the single most ghastly abomination arising from the concentration camps of World War Two. They determined that Jews, Gypsies and other "non-Aryans" weren't really human beings.

Once that first step has been taken and we have a legal definition of when life begins, then the states can take jurisdiction as to how to address violating that right. Each state has its own laws as to how murder is treated within its borders; murder’s not a Federal offense and is left up to the states to address through their own criminal justice systems. But one thing is unanimous, and that’s the definition of murder as the unlawful taking of a life. And the states are not allowed to determine for themselves the definitions of “life” or “human being”.

There was a time when this issue did not need to be addressed, but medical advances have now made it mandatory that this status be legally defined, just as we, as a national society, define when a person is legally dead and organ harvesting can begin. While we’re at it, we also need to make a firm determination and definition, at a national level, of the issues raised by the Terry Schiavo case.

As we become ever more medically capable of sustaining life at both ends of its cycle, it becomes increasingly mandatory for a firm determination of when the right of life is applicable to particular medical states.

To do any less is to perpetually kick this can down the road, and never find resolution for the issue.

As the internecine debate rages over the GOP candidates for the nomination, and becomes particularly rancorous over Giuliani’s run, I find myself arguing more frequently with Giuliani supporters who seem to find one or two issues persuasive enough to justify his election. The following exchange is typical:

Poster:  “I’m supporting Rudy because I’m an economic conservative. It’s that simple. If you agree with me that both the economy and national security are what will matter to America in the long run, then consider what a great job Rudy can do in those areas.”

Me:  “Though I agree those are important, I’m animated by my concern for long-term conservative values, and the threat Rudy poses to them. As I think about it, my core concerns encompass yours, but yours don’t necessarily encompass mine.”

There are three primary areas of government policy:

   1.  Economic/Fiscal
   2.  National defense/Foreign policy
   3.  Social/Domestic

The term “neo-conservative”, or “neo-con” (meaning literally “new” conservative), was originally devised to denote one whose stances on Policy Areas #1 and/or #2 were conservative, while remaining liberal on #3. At the time, this was a “new” type of self-labeled conservative, hence the name. Unfortunately, many people started attaching an anti-Semitic connotation to the term – possibly because some of the notable people involved in the movement were, in fact, Jewish, like Irving Kristol, Horowitz and Medved – so I’ve started using the term “faux-cons” (“false” conservatives) instead.

But essentially, the conflict between faux-cons and traditional conservatives centers on Policy Area #3. Traditional conservatives, or “paleo-cons” (“old-style” conservatives) hold that #3 is at least as important as the other areas, and in fact encompasses issues of constitutional rights and limitations that are essential to the continuation of the nation in its historic form. Issues such as judicial activism, entitlement spending, gun rights, racial quotas, affirmative action, environmental activism, same-sex “marriage”, right to life, criminal justice, the death penalty, and many more, are all encompassed in Policy Area #3.

These are issues that go the definition of the moral fabric and social contract of our country, and to many paleo-cons are of even more import than anything else, as they define what our society, in fact, is.

To paleo-cons, success in Policy Areas #1 and #2 is virtually worthless if the country loses the battle on #3 and turns into a socialist country like many in Europe. The further irony is that when one adopts strong conservative positions in Area #3, the virtual default positions in the other two Areas are also conservative.

This is why Giuliani is running around trying to convince voters that he’s really a conservative on Policy Area #3, regardless of his history as a very liberal mayor, and throwing around conservative buzzwords like “originalist”. He’s trying to win over, or at least assuage the concerns of, true paleo-cons. This is also why a Giuliani Presidency is such a danger to this country; if Policy Area #3 becomes irrelevant, then we will have changed into a European-style country, or California.

The real challenge is to stimulate a broad consensus that paleo-conservatism, as typified by Reagan, the Contract With America, and Bobby Jindahl’s recent election as Governor of Louisiana, is the only reliable way to win the cultural war in this country, and settling for half measures will lead to our ultimate failure.

The enemy: willing to hijack aircraft and turn them into flying bombs, killing themselves and thousands of others, innocent civilians; willing to blow themselves up in bazaars and theaters, killing themselves and innocent civilians; torture and behead captives, and hang the naked bodies from bridges; fight as guerrillas and irregulars, wearing no uniforms and blending into the populace; don’t obey the rules of laws or conventions of war; believe death in battle leads to martyrdom; religious fanatics, who believe Allah is on their side; will do anything to impose their theocracy on the rest of the world.

Us: Going through a national hand-wringing exercise about getting the enemy’s face wet.

Well, if I were a Vegas odds-maker, I know how I’d peg the outcome of that fight! And I may well be right in the long run.

Obviously, I’m referring to the national debate – and hysteria from so many, not all on the Left – about “waterboarding”.

Contrary to popular perception, military conflicts are only rarely won by wiping out the enemy to the last man. It’s so rare, those occasions are immortalized in history, an example being the Spartans at Thermopylae. The term “decimate”, thought by most to mean “massacre” or “wipe out”, actually means to “reduce by one tenth”; in other words, kill 10% of the enemy.

Military conflicts are won by making the continuation of warfare so unpalatable to the enemy that he surrenders or sues for peace or simply vacates the battlefield.

In World War II we did it by firebombing German cities such as Dresden, killing tens of thousands of civilians, men, women and children. We defeated Japan by dropping two nuclear devices on their cities after firebombing Tokyo, killing tens of thousands of civilians.

Of course, now we’re more cultured and civilized. We’re worried about getting the faces of Islamo-Fascist terrorists wet.

Nobody ever won a war by “out-nicing” the other guy. Wars are won by making the cost of continuing the war so high, the enemy doesn’t want to play anymore. In the culture of the Middle East, strength is respected; power is respected; will is respected; force is respected. “Nice” is derided and viewed as a sign of weakness.

Just as Supreme Court Robert Jackson observed that the Constitution “is not a suicide pact”, neither are the Geneva Conventions of 1949, particularly as they don’t apply to non-uniformed irregular combatants of a non-signatory body nor spies.

But once again, the Left has succeeded in redefining the terms of the debate. History lesson, all: in 1968 the Media Elites of the Left declared the Vietnam War a lost cause. It didn’t have to be, because we had just enjoyed a terrific military victory, the Tet Offensive. General Vo Nguyen Giap, the top military strategist for the North Vietnamese, in his autobiography, was quite clear in giving full credit for the ultimate victory of the Communists to America’s Left.

They must be sooooo proud, to be the most effective weapon in the enemy’s arsenal!

This is a real problem, folks. This is not a good sign for our longevity as a nation.