Check out how to nominate a youngamerican to any office! Click here.
To understand the context of this blog post, please read “Why the founding of the country matters.”
Series 1 – The foundation of freedom and conservatism – i.e. the world view of theyoungamerican
Post 2 – Life
At its core, stating that one has the right to life ought to, in a civilized society, be pretty easily understood. It says, “Hey, put down that gun, you can’t kill him/her.” And of course, America has laws against intentionally and even unintentionally killing another person. This principle is so basic it is almost silly to even discuss it. But here we are, in the 21st Century, debating just that, at least every 4 years or so. Granted, we haven’t had many Presidential candidates take the position that murder should be legalized, but we still debate whether we should protect those whom are most vulnerable.
Some will say, “Hey, we support the right to life, it’s simply a matter of when life begins.” Ok, show me the data that states the exact moment when life begins. We have a lot of data out there on when the heart starts beating (21 days); the brain begins to have activity (40 days), etc. Does this constitute life? Or did the life start before the heartbeat? We can’t find a solid scientific answer for this. So let’s just say, screw it, and err on the side of convenience and death. Sound too harsh? Well, if the point is when life begins, and we are wrong, and allow or take part in ending a life, then we have caused death. Some would call it murder.
Or, we could err on the other side. Take the 2nd-3rd Century Church Father Tertullian’s statement against the practice of abortion.
“For us (Christians) murder is once for all forbidden; so even the child in the womb, while yet the mother’s blood is still being drawn on to form the human being, it is not lawful to destroy. To forbid birth is only quicker murder. It makes no difference whether one take away the life once born or destroy it as it comes to birth. He is a man, who is to be a man, the fruit is always present in the seed.” (1)
See, that’s what you could call, erring on the side of life.
Any rationale mind that does not advocate anarchy and the arbitrary destruction of human life would have to see that at the very least; one is taking a large chance in ending an innocent life by conducting an abortion. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that all abortion advocates are advocating anarchy. What I am saying is that for the most part, the two sides of the debate are focused on two very different objectives. The pro-life side with preserving life in accordance with our founding principles. The pro-abortion side is focused on rights. Yes, I said rights. But whose rights? Well, it’s obviously not the rights of the unborn. It’s rights of the born, although that’s even a stretch with partial-birth abortion and the more radical advocates of early infanticide. Let’s just say that pro-abortion advocates are for the rights of the very, very, very born; people that are able to reproduce.
So what does this position of the pro-abortionist (even those who are so nuanced as to say “I wouldn’t do it but I don’t want to force my beliefs on others”) have in common with the defining statement of the founding of the United States?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Well, one would have to say, not a single, solitary thing. The DOI says that ALL men have the unalienable right to LIFE. Doesn’t that mean that we can’t take innocent life? What about the most noble of all reasons of not wanting to bring a child into poverty (note extreme sarcasm here)? This argument doesn’t stand up, either. Our founders gave us no wiggle room here. Would we accept wiggle room on any of these other rights? Perhaps, on the created equal part as it relates to certain sexes, or races, or religions? I don’t think so.
With that in mind, consider a quote from Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.
“The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its members is to kill it.”
If you’re wondering where her follow up is that cites the constitutionality of this statement, stop wondering. It’s not there. There are two groups in America today as it relates to Life, the group that believes and follows the founding principles of our country and the group that does not. The pro-abortion group has already decided that ALL men are not created with the right to life. Who gets the right to life is for the reproductive masses to decide.
1. Tertullian, Apologeticus IX.- 6,8.