First, [Hart writes that women will insist on] “…control of their
reproductive capability.” Please. Can we get any more tired
of a pro-abortion canard? Women have great control
over their reproductive capability – don’t have sex. Oddly, that’s part
of the “revolution” he keeps mentioning: the right of women to not be
married off by their fathers as soon as they turn 18 (or 14, or
whatever). They have a choice.
Second, every point…[Hart] makes is basis for a “living Constituion”.
“Things have changed”, “sand into a hurricane”, “irresistible power”,
etc. Doesn’t sound very conservative to me – not even close. Sounds
more like a cultural relativist. Get with it, old man; the times – they
Third is this [Hart] statement: “Until such “rights” become law they are only
theoretical rights.” Actually, the Declaration of Independence says
they are NATURAL rights, and a government doesn’t grant those rights, it
can only restrict them. And, it says that a government that denies
those rights is illegitimate and should be dissolved. And, then, of
course, he uses those who have waived their rights by their own actions
against society as an example of those rights being “denied”. (And, I
can’t find anything in the Constitution for or against conscription -
not a word.)
Lastly, Fr. Murray is spot on.