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

 

doi1 

 

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. 

 

infant_small1

 

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.

 

 

 

References

1.       Tertullian, Apologeticus IX.- 6,8.

Advertisements

  1. So true. I think there is great scientific evidence that life begins at conception, because that’s when the human being begins to develop. Only living matter can do that.

    As for the abortionist side (they don’t typically call themselves that ’cause it sounds too much like the harsh truth), I think that there are many who have swallowed the lies that it’s not life, or that the baby should be killed to save the life of the mother, or even (and this one really gets me) if the mother has been abused, her pregnancy should be terminated.

    The leaders and founders of that movement (like Margaret Sanger whom you listed) know far better. Abortion is not about saving life, not even the mother’s life. I do not know of any evidence that injecting the womb with a saline poison (used in the abortion process) is going to be in any way beneficial to the mother’s health — do you? (sarcasm)

    I think that the purposes for abortion are manifold: they want to eliminate certain groups of people, like the poor, those who have genetic illnesses, (I believe Sanger wanted to target Jews and blacks also), and I also think they desire global population control. It’s mostly environmentalist globalists who support abortion, and they’ve made it pretty clear that they want to reduce the number of human beings on the planet — to save the trees, they say ….

    Thanks for standing up. Thanks also for inviting me to comment on your blog. I am happy to. I hope you will have the opportunity to do so on mine, as well.

    If you are interested, you may join my “Friends of Liberty” blogroll (requirements here). And if you have time or interest, you may participate every Friday in my Founding Father’s Quote Friday meme. Just leave a comment on my blog and let me know your decision; no obligations.

    Hercules Mulligan

  2. theyoungamerican

    I would love to be a part of your Founding Father’s Quote Friday. See you there. As for why people support abortion, I think Ann Coulter said it best, abortion is the sacrament of the religion of liberalism.
    http://www.anncoulter.com

  3. Great! And what a true statement.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: