Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation - Ronald Wilson Reagan
The Human Life Review ^ | Spring 1983 | Ronald Wilson Reagan

Posted on 01/24/2005 6:50:06 PM PST by Jeff Head

Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation - 1982

The 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade is a good time for us to pause and reflect. Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people nor enacted by our legislators— not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. But the consequences of this judicial decision are now obvious: since 1973, more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our nation's wars.

Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born. Yet that is what the Court ruled.

As an act of "raw judicial power" (to use Justice White's biting phrase), the decision by the seven-man majority in Roe v. Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court's decision has by no means settled the debate. Instead, Roe v. Wade has become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.

Abortion concerns not just the unborn child, it concerns every one of us. The English poet, John Donne, wrote: ". . . any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life— the unborn—without diminishing the value of all human life. Wesaw tragic proof of this truism last year when the Indiana courts allowed the starvation death of "Baby Doe" in Bloomington because the child had Down's Syndrome.

Many of our fellow citizens grieve over the loss of life that has followed Roe v. Wade. Margaret Heckler, soon after being nominated to head the largest department of our government, Health and Human Services, told an audience that she believed abortion to be the greatest moral crisis facing our country today. And the revered Mother Teresa, who works in the streets of Calcutta ministering to dying people in her world-famous mission of mercy, has said that "the greatest misery of our time is the generalized abortion of children."

Over the first two years of my Administration I have closely followed and assisted efforts in Congress to reverse the tide of abortion— efforts of Congressmen, Senators and citizens responding to an urgent moral crisis. Regrettably, I have also seen the massive efforts of those who, under the banner of "freedom of choice," have so far blocked every effort to reverse nationwide abortion-on-demand.

Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed. But the great majority of the American people have not yet made their voices heard, and we cannot expect them to—any more than the public voice arose against slavery—until the issue is clearly framed and presented.

What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives—the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.

The case against abortion does not rest here, however, for medical practice confirms at every step the correctness of these moral sensibilities. Modern medicine treats the unborn child as a patient. Medical pioneers have made great breakthroughs in treating the unborn—for genetic problems, vitamin deficiencies, irregular heart rhythms, and other medical conditions. Who can forget George Will's moving account of the little boy who underwent brain surgery six times during the nine weeks before he was born? Who is the patient if not that tiny unborn human being who can feel pain when he or she is approached by doctors who come to kill rather than to cure?

The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life? The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother's body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law— the same right we have.

What more dramatic confirmation could we have of the real issue than the Baby Doe case in Bloomington, Indiana? The death of that tiny infant tore at the hearts of all Americans because the child was undeniably a live human being—one lying helpless before the eyes of the doctors and the eyes of the nation. The real issue for the courts was not whether Baby Doe was a human being. The real issue was whether to protect the life of a human being who had Down's Syndrome, who would probably be mentally handicapped, but who needed a routine surgical procedure to unblock his esophagus and allow him to eat. A doctor testified to the presiding judge that, even with his physical problem corrected, Baby Doe would have a "non-existent" possibility for "a minimally adequate quality of life"—in other words, that retardation was the equivalent of a crime deserving the death penalty. The judge let Baby Doe starve and die, and the Indiana Supreme Court sanctioned his decision.

Federal law does not allow federally-assisted hospitals to decide that Down's Syndrome infants are not worth treating, much less to decide to starve them to death. Accordingly, I have directed the Departments of Justice and HHS to apply civil rights regulations to protect handicapped newborns. All hospitals receiving federal funds must post notices which will clearly state that failure to feed handicapped babies is prohibited by federal law. The basic issue is whether to value and protect the lives of the handicapped, whether to recognize the sanctity of human life. This is the same basic issue that underlies the question of abortion.

The 1981 Senate hearings on the beginning of human life brought out the basic issue more clearly than ever before. The many medical and scientific witnesses who testified disagreed on many things, but not on the scientific evidence that the unborn child is alive, is a distinct individual, or is a member of the human species. They did disagree over the value question, whether to give value to a human life at its early and most vulnerable stages of existence.

Regrettably, we live at a time when some persons do not value all human life. They want to pick and choose which individuals have value. Some have said that only those individuals with "consciousness of self" are human beings. One such writer has followed this deadly logic and concluded that "shocking as it may seem, a newly born infant is not a human being."

A Nobel Prize winning scientist has suggested that if a handicapped child "were not declared fully human until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice." In other words, "quality control" to see if newly born human beings are up to snuff.

Obviously, some influential people want to deny that every human life has intrinsic, sacred worth. They insist that a member of the human race must have certain qualities before they accord him or her status as a "human being."

Events have borne out the editorial in a California medical journal which explained thr€e years before Roe v. Wade that the social acceptance of abortion is a "defiance of the long-held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition, or status."

Every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not. As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the "quality of life" ethic.

I have no trouble identifying the answer our nation has always given to this basic question, and the answer that I hope and pray it will give in the future. American was founded by men and women who shared a vision of the value of each and every individual. They stated this vision clearly from the very start in the Declaration of Independence, using words that every schoolboy and schoolgirl can recite:

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.

We fought a terrible war to guarantee that one category of mankind— black people in America—could not be denied the inalienable rights with which their Creator endowed them. The great champion of the sanctity of all human life in that day, Abraham Lincoln, gave us his assessment of the Declaration's purpose. Speaking of the framers of that noble document, he said

:

This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures. Yes, gentlemen, to all his creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on. . . They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children and their children's children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages.

He warned also of the danger we would face if we closed our eyes to the value of life in any category of human beings:

I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?

When Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee the rights of life, liberty, and property to all human beings, he explained that all are "entitled to the protection of American law, because its divine spirit of equality declares that all men are created equal." He said the right guaranteed by the amendment would therefore apply to "any human being." Justice William Brennan, writing in another case decided only the year before Roe v. Wade, referred to our society as one that "strongly affirms the sanctity of life."

Another William Brennan—not the Justice—has reminded us of the terrible consequences that can follow when a nation rejects the sanctity of life ethic:

The cultural environment for a human holocaust is present whenever any society can be misled into defining individuals as less than human and therefore devoid of value and respect.

As a nation today, we have not rejected the sanctity of human life. The American people have not had an opportunity to express their view on the sanctity of human life in the unborn. I am convinced that Americans do not want to play God with the value of human life. It is not for us to decide who is worthy to live and who is not. Even the Supreme Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade did not explicitly reject the traditional American idea of intrinsic worth and value in all human life; it simply dodged this issue.

The Congress has before it several measures that would enable our people to reaffirm the sanctity of human life, even the smallest and the youngest and the most defenseless. The Human Life Bill expressly recognizes the unborn as human beings and accordingly protects them as persons under our Constitution. This bill, first introduced by Senator Jesse Helms, provided the vehicle for the Senate hearings in 1981 which contributed so much to our understanding of the real issue of abortion.

The Respect Human Life Act, just introduced in the 98th Congress, states in its first section that the policy of the United States is "to protect innocent life, both before and after birth." This bill, sponsored by Congressman Henry Hyde and Senator Roger Jepsen, prohibits the federal government from performing abortions or assisting those who do so, except to save the life of the mother. It also addresses the pressing issue of infanticide which, as we have seen, flows inevitably from permissive abortion as another step in the denial of the inviolability of innocent human life.

I have endorsed each of these measures, as well as the more difficult route of constitutional amendment, and I will give these initiatives my full support. Each of them, in different ways, attempts to reverse the tragic policy of abortion-on-demand imposed by the Supreme Court ten years ago. Each of them is a decisive way to affirm the sanctity of human life.

We must all educate ourselves to the reality of the horrors taking place. Doctors today know that unborn children can feel a touch within the womb and that they respond to pain. But how many Americans are aware that abortion techniques are allowed today, in all 50 states, that burn the skin of a baby with a salt solution, in an agonizing death that can last for hours?

Another example: two years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a Sunday special supplement on "The Dreaded Complication." The "dreaded complication" referred to in the article—the complication feared by doctors who perform abortions—is the survival of the child despite all the painful attacks during the abortion procedure. Some unborn children do survive the late-term abortions the Supreme Court has made legal. Is there any question that these victims of abortion deserve our attention and protection? Is there any question that those who don't survive were living human beings before they were killed?

Late-term abortions, especially when the baby survives, but is then killed by starvation, neglect, or suffocation, show once again the link between abortion and infanticide. The time to stop both is now. As my Administration acts to stop infanticide, we will be fully aware of the real issue that underlies the death of babies before and soon after birth.

Our society has, fortunately, become sensitive to the rights and special needs of the handicapped, but I am shocked that physical or mental handicaps of newborns are still used to justify their extinction. This Administration has a Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, who has done perhaps more than any other American for handicapped children, by pioneering surgical techniques to help them, by speaking out on the value of their lives, and by working with them in the context of loving families. You will not find his former patients advocating the so-called "quality-of-life" ethic.

I know that when the true issue of infanticide is placed before the American people, with all the facts openly aired, we will have no trouble deciding that a mentally or physically handicapped baby has the same intrinsic worth and right to life as the rest of us. As the New Jersey Supreme Court said two decades ago, in a decision upholding the sanctity of human life, "a child need not be perfect to have a worthwhile life."

Whether we are talking about pain suffered by unborn children, or about late-term abortions, or about infanticide, we inevitably focus on the humanity of the unborn child. Each of these issues is a potential rallying point for the sanctity of life ethic. Once we as a nation rally around any one of these issues to affirm the sanctity of life, we will see the importance of affirming this principle across the board.

Malcolm Muggeridge, the English writer, goes right to the heart of the matter: "Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other." The sanctity of innocent human life is a principle that Congress should proclaim at every opportunity.

It is possible that the Supreme Court itself may overturn its abortion rulings. We need only recall that in Brown v. Board of Education the court reversed its own earlier "separate-but-equal" decision. I believe if the Supreme Court took another look at Roe v. Wade, and considered the real issue between the sanctity of life ethic and the quality of life ethic, it would change its mind once again.

As we continue to work to overturn Roe v. Wade, we must also continue to lay the groundwork for a society in which abortion is not the accepted answer to unwanted pregnancy. Pro-life people have already taken heroic steps, often at great personal sacrifice, to provide for unwed mothers. I recently spoke about a young pregnant woman named Victoria, who said, "In this society we save whales, we save timber wolves and bald eagles and Coke bottles. Yet, everyone wanted me to throw away my baby." She has been helped by Save-a-Life, a group in Dallas, which provides a way for unwed mothers to preserve the human life within them when they might otherwise be tempted to resort to abortion. I think also of House of His Creation in Catesville, Pennsylvania, where a loving couple has taken in almost 200 young women in the past ten years. They have seen, as a fact of life, that the girls are not better off having abortions than saving their babies. I am also reminded of the remarkable Rossow family of Ellington, Connecticut, who have opened their hearts and their home to nine handicapped adopted and foster children.

The Adolescent Family Life Program, adopted by Congress at the request of Senator Jeremiah Denton, has opened new opportunities for unwed mothers to give their children life. We should not rest until our entire society echoes the tone of John Powell in the dedication of his book, Abortion: The Silent Holocaust, a dedication to every woman carrying an unwanted child: "Please believe that you are not alone. There are many of us that truly love you, who want to stand at your side, and help in any way we can." And we can echo the always-practical woman of faith, Mother Teresa, when she says, "If you don't want the little child, that unborn child, give him to me." We have so many families in America seeking to adopt children that the slogan "every child a wanted child" is now the emptiest of all reasons to tolerate abortion.

I have often said we need to join in prayer to bring protection to the unborn. Prayer and action are needed to uphold the sanctity of human life. I believe it will not be possible to accomplish our work, the work of saving lives, "without being a soul of prayer." The famous British Member of Parliament, William Wilberforce, prayed with his small group of influential friends, the "Clapham Sect," for decades to see an end to slavery in the British empire. Wilberforce led that struggle in Parliament, unflaggingly, because he believed in the sanctity of human life. He saw the fulfillment of his impossible dream when Parliament outlawed slavery just before his death.

Let his faith and perseverance be our guide. We will never recognize the true value of our own lives until we affirm the value in the life of others, a value of which Malcolm Muggeridge says:. . . however low it flickers or fiercely burns, it is still a Divine flame which no man dare presume to put out, be his motives ever so humane and enlightened."

Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: abortion; holocaust; prolife; ronaldreagan; unconstitutional
Could not be said better.
Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.

1 posted on 01/24/2005 6:50:07 PM PST by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: joanie-f; Dukie; Squantos; JohnHuang2; k.trujillo; Travis McGee; jim macomber; Critter; Lurker; ...

Never forget.


2 posted on 01/24/2005 6:52:28 PM PST by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Good. Now let's hope and pray that President Bush will be able to get some good conservative judges on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.


3 posted on 01/24/2005 6:53:11 PM PST by wk4bush2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joanie-f; Dukie; Squantos; JohnHuang2; k.trujillo; Travis McGee; jim macomber; Critter; Lurker; ...

Never forget.


4 posted on 01/24/2005 6:53:11 PM PST by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Contrast that to the "we should change the hearts and minds" claptrap from Bush. Reagan's position on Roe v Wade was absolutely clear. What is Bush's position on Roe v Wade?


5 posted on 01/24/2005 6:53:58 PM PST by econ_grad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

I believe he wants to...I have hope and faith in God that it will happen.


6 posted on 01/24/2005 6:54:00 PM PST by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Amen.


7 posted on 01/24/2005 6:56:48 PM PST by wk4bush2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: econ_grad
I believe Bush's intentions, disposition and inclinations are good. I believe he is a sincere and honest Christian. I also believe that he is beset from time to time with being too political. Reagan communicated directly on such issues.

I pray Bush will accomplish in his second term what millions have prayed and worked for for over thirty years. In the end, I believe the survival of our liberty depends on it getting done soon.

8 posted on 01/24/2005 6:58:32 PM PST by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Bush is a career politician. He wants to build his legacy and will not waste any political capital in causes that he doesn't believe in 100%. Sorry, I just don't think abortion is one of his priorities.


9 posted on 01/24/2005 7:00:04 PM PST by econ_grad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: econ_grad
Uhh, I would not call him a career politician. He became governor in the 90's...before that, he was a business man, and before that, before his sincere conversion to Christ, he was somewhat the partier.

We shall see. He has proven a cagey politician and good tactician from a political sense and I believe, being a sincere Christian, and having the right inclinations, that he is open to guidance from above.

I hope and I pray that those things win out in the end...like I said, ultimately, because of the fundamental nature of the issue, our very liberty depends on it.

10 posted on 01/24/2005 7:03:29 PM PST by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Then I would seriously urge you to look for a better candidate in 08. Do you know what Bush's position is on Roe v Wade?


11 posted on 01/24/2005 7:06:29 PM PST by econ_grad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Just more proof of his greatness. I so dispise those who cry freedom of choice, when it is really freedom to murder. The baby isn't given a choice, and when you see a life that is in jeapordy, it always struggles to survive. This alone should be proof of choice!! Of course a liberal wouldn't even attempt to agree with that.


12 posted on 01/24/2005 7:06:59 PM PST by phoenix0468 (One man with courage is a majority. (Thomas Jefferson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

I still have a copy of that book on my shelves. Ah.. for another Reagan! or Lincoln for that matter.


13 posted on 01/24/2005 7:13:51 PM PST by God bless Texas (I don't care how much you know until I know how much you care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

The numbers are against us.

O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg and Stevens are calling the shots right now and only Rehnquist - a truly great American - looks like his departure is imminent.

The liberal branch of the Court will hang in there until 2008 to try and assure these offerings to Moloch continue.


14 posted on 01/24/2005 7:19:13 PM PST by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: econ_grad
Bush cannot run in 08, so that is a given. I know what Bush has said on the matter. Here are a few.
It's important to promote a culture of life. A hospitable society is a society where every being counts and every person matters. The ideal world is one in which every child is protected in law and welcomed to life. I understand there's great differences on this issue of abortion, but I believe reasonable people can come together and put good law in place that will help reduce the number of abortions. Take, for example, the ban on partial birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. People from both political parties came together in the halls of Congress and voted overwhelmingly to ban that practice. - Oct 2004

We're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion. This is an issue that divides America, but certainly reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America. I signed the ban on partial birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. It's one way to help reduce abortions. There ought to be parental notification laws. I signed a bill called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. If you're a mom and you're pregnant and you get killed, the murderer gets tried for two cases, not just one. These are reasonable ways to help promote a culture of life in America. It's a worthy goal in America to have every child protected by law and welcomed in life. We ought to continue to have good adoption law as an alternative to abortion. We need to promote maternity group homes, which my administration has done. - Oct 2004

I think what the next president ought to do is promote a culture of life in America. As a matter of fact, I think a noble goal for this country is that every child, born and unborn, ought to be protected in law and welcomed into life. - Oct 2000

I believe that life is valuable, even when it is unwanted, even when it is physically imperfect. I believe our society has a responsibility to defend the vulnerable and the weak. And I believe our nation should set a goal: that unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law. This is the ideal: a generous society that values every life. I know there are many steps on this road. A democracy is ruled by consensus, not by edict. Laws are changed as minds are persuaded. - June 1999
He is 4square against partial birth abortion, he wants no federal money for abortions, he is for parental notification, he wants no federal money for international organizations performing aboprtion, he promotes a culture of life, he believes in exceptions for incest and rape (which I do not...why punish an innocent child with death for the crimes of its parent(s)?), he believes in an exception for the life of the mother (which I agree that the mother and father (wherever possible) should decide with a doctors input).

This is what he has said and consistently done and I support that. Is he perfect? No, he (as I have already stated on this thread) too political at times on this issue. But his inclinations, beliefs and motivations are good and I believe he can be influenced by God in Heaven. I'll take that over anything else currently on the radar scope. Hopefully, before 2008, we shall see marked progress. If not, then 2008 is going to be a time for choosing other candidates in any case..

15 posted on 01/24/2005 7:25:16 PM PST by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468

When they say pro-choice...it means pro-their choice, even if if it takes killing another human being and silencing that heart to get their way.


16 posted on 01/24/2005 7:26:22 PM PST by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

But they're aging. And some of them have had cancer. Is it possible that they may retire?

Right now, I've noticed, the Court has a balance

3 Conservatives, 3 Moderates, and 3 Liberals. If we could get a couple more consrevatives on there, we could tip the balance in our favor.


17 posted on 01/24/2005 7:26:44 PM PST by wk4bush2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: God bless Texas

If we perservere, if we work hard with faith...God in Heaven will send us one...or influence one we already have to become one.


18 posted on 01/24/2005 7:27:22 PM PST by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

very very sick people. It really just makes me sick.


19 posted on 01/24/2005 7:30:03 PM PST by phoenix0468 (One man with courage is a majority. (Thomas Jefferson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Bttt.

5.56mm

20 posted on 01/24/2005 7:32:03 PM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

I am sorry but none of these remarks have anything to do with Roe v Wade. I am curious what his opinion is on Roe v Wade.

He is opposed to govt spending money on abortion? That's strange because the federal govt continues to pay for abortions for poor women. The PBA ban was nothing but a mere gotcha act for politicians. Most in Congress knew it wouldn't amount to anything since the courts will block the enforcement of it. It was a way for Republicans to play holier than thou.

I actually am against that stupid bill because it does nothing to stop any abortion. Women who would otherwise wait to make up their mind later will simply abort early. I don't think its effect will be anything more than marginal. It simply outlaws a medical procedure. It doesn't ban late-term abortions, as Rick Santorum has pointed out. This was simply political chicanery.


21 posted on 01/24/2005 7:36:43 PM PST by econ_grad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

I know who the Conservatives are, but I wouldn't call O'Connor a moderate. Not after some of her more recent votes and her totally assinine statements about the Federal Courts considering the legal practises of other nations.

In my book, only Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist are on our side.

But I hope and pray it transpires as you stated.


22 posted on 01/24/2005 7:42:20 PM PST by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
This is what he has said and consistently done and I support that. Is he perfect? No, he (as I have already stated on this thread) too political at times on this issue. But his inclinations, beliefs and motivations are good and I believe he can be influenced by God in Heaven. I'll take that over anything else currently on the radar scope. Hopefully, before 2008, we shall see marked progress. If not, then 2008 is going to be a time for choosing other candidates in any case.

Bump. We will NEVER forget.

23 posted on 01/24/2005 7:55:51 PM PST by 4CJ (Laissez les bon FReeps rouler - Quo Gladius de Veritas - Deo vindice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: God bless Texas

We've had plenty of Lincolns and Lincoln wannabees.

What we need is another Washington, but I'd settle for a Reagan or two.


24 posted on 01/24/2005 8:46:42 PM PST by Badray (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown. RIP harpseal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

BTTT


25 posted on 01/24/2005 8:49:22 PM PST by Badray (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown. RIP harpseal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Indeed. Never Forget. Kudos for the article, Jeff!


26 posted on 01/24/2005 8:53:48 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

I saw a color ultrasound today, taken for someone I know, of his own child's. It was unforgettable. If we showed them to everyone, the demand would just go away.


27 posted on 01/24/2005 8:58:34 PM PST by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Reagan BUMP


28 posted on 01/24/2005 10:24:16 PM PST by Christian4Bush ("Dear Dems: Your message got out. A popular and electoral majority of voters rejected it. The End.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IncPen; Nailbiter; Forecaster
You know, you have to read this and know that Reagan wrote it himself -- and he wrote it while in the middle of his first term as President.

I challenge any one to find a modern US President who was confident enough of his own position in the world and politics to write such a polemic.

29 posted on 01/25/2005 8:02:05 PM PST by BartMan1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Thank you (thank you thank you) for the ping, Jeff.

Michael Reagan, in the foreword to Mary Beth Brown’s book, ‘Hand of Providence: The Strong and Quiet Faith of Ronald Reagan,’ writes:

It is an inspiring story of how a seed of faith is planted in the life of a young man by a diligent and caring mother, how that faith blossomed and changed his life, and how, through him, that faith changed America and the entire world.

I teach the adult Sunday school class at our church on a rotating basis, so it works out that I teach the class (generally between forty and fifty adults) about every four to six weeks. The topic of one of my lessons maybe two years ago was 'Abortion: What is the Christian's Duty?'. For the first time since I have been a teacher, I decided not to center the lesson around interpretation and application of scripture. Instead, what I did for that particular class was simply read Reagan’s ‘Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation’ (I had purchased a hardcover copy from the Human Life Foundation back in the late 80s) to the class, and then open the class for discussion.

For the first time, I walked into class with no intention of opening the Bible. Ronald Reagan’s life is much more spiritually and scripturally inspired than is the life of anyone I, personally, have ever studied. So I felt that, in reading his words on such a controversial subject, we would be hearing and studying scripture through those words. (Shortly after the assassination attempt, Reagan confided in Terence Cardinal Cooke, ‘I have decided that whatever time I have left is for Him … whatever happens now I owe my life to God and will try to serve Him in every way I can.’ I believe Reagan’s life reflected that promise, long before he voiced it.)

That particular Sunday school class was probably the most insightful, participatory, enlightening, heart-rending class I have ever taught. Even people who generally remain quiet during the class opened up and took part in deep, spirited, personal discussion. And what served as the spark that animated even normally quiet, ‘passive’ members of that class to eagerly take part in the discussion was Reagan’s forthright, heartfelt, conscience-driven words. His simple, yet inspiring, prose struck an eternally ‘human’ chord in every person there.

In writing ‘Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation’, Reagan was blazing a new, and characteristically courageous, path. Even Time Magazine observed that ‘an essay by a recently sitting President is rare.’ And an essay by a recently sitting President (this essay was published toward the end of Reagan’s first term), written on such a controversial moral issue, is unheard of. But Reagan’s conscience led him to write it, as the foreword to the book says,’to respond to the dictates of his conscience and speak to the conscience of the nation.’

Thank you for posting it here, in its entirety!

The bound copy of Reagan's essay is appended by two very powerful essays: 'The Slide to Auschwitz', by C. Everett Koop, and 'The Humane Holocaust', by Malcolm Muggeridge. Muggeridge comments on Reagan [brackets are mine]:

On such vital moral issues as abortion, politicians tend to sit on the fence, hoping to pick up a few votes from both sides [witness Hillary Clinton’s recent abhorrent, self-serving, politically-motivated swing toward the pro-life cause]. Your President Reagan is the only example I’ve come across in half a century of knockabout journalism of a political leader ready to stand up without any reservations for the sanctity of life rather than for what passes for being the quality of life. All honour to him!

A brief, pertinent quote from Marvin Olasky in yesterday’s Federalist Patriot:

We have a license to kill unborn children (and young born ones) because they lack ‘higher mental capacities’ according to Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer. Hmmm ... Maybe T-ball players are useless because they lack higher baseball capacities. Maybe acorns are worthless because we can’t make oak furniture from them.

~ joanie

30 posted on 01/25/2005 10:56:27 PM PST by joanie-f
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: joanie-f
You are welcome Joanie...and thank you (as always) for relating your own, clear, down to earth experiences and examples that epitomize the spirit of Reagans words and dream. May we all, in faith, take up that dream and strive for the shining city.

If we do all we can, even if we do not attain it in this world, we shall surely see it and dwell in it in the next.

31 posted on 01/26/2005 5:45:27 AM PST by Jeff Head (www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

bttt


32 posted on 02/03/2005 6:41:32 PM PST by John Lenin (Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born...Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econ_grad

My gosh - could you have done any better on Bush's watch?! During his First year - there was a horrific invasion to our country, the large business company scandals and downfalls, repercussions from the 9/11 attack on the economy, and massive lay-offs.

The next years, he had two wars - opposition daily from the liberal medias bad mouthing him - and not to mention the daily gloom and doom of the Demo(n)s - opposition to his nominees - false accusations, on and on!

And you think he has not had enough to do - I believe he is working to bring justice to the down and out people including the unborn - but he will need our prayers to be able to carry out the things that need urgent attention -

And definitely our (Loud!)input to help him to see that the abortion (murder of the unborn) - Is an Urgent matter.


33 posted on 02/05/2005 10:08:15 PM PST by Anita1 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Anita1

So, how much you want to wager on this?


34 posted on 02/05/2005 10:11:40 PM PST by econ_grad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson