Posted on 05/09/2011 4:48:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
"Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life. To raise the question of whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of its life. And that is nothing but murder.” – Dietrich Bonheoffer.
Over the course of the last two weeks I have had conversations with two men who claim to be conservative but who also steadfastly defend a woman’s right to choose abortion. In both cases, the self-proclaimed conservative asserted that the government has no right to tell a woman what to do with “her” body. One went so far as to say that a government that could outlaw abortion could also re-institute slavery.
Support for a so-called constitutional right to abortion is completely at odds with conservatism. In fact, when you hear a “conservative” claiming to support abortion rights you can be certain that the individual simply does not understand basic conservative principles. In all likelihood the pro-abortion-choice “conservative” adopts the label because of self-interest. Perhaps he makes good money and does not want to pay high taxes. What makes a person human does not necessarily make him conservative.
When you suspect you are talking to a pseudo-conservative there are usually two questions you can ask that will either confirm or disconfirm your suspicions immediately.
First and foremost, it is important to ask the self-proclaimed conservative the following: “Do you believe in the inherent ‘goodness’ or ‘perfectibility’ of mankind.” If you hear a “yes” you are talking to a liberal. If you hear “Did you mean to say ‘person-kind’?” you are talking to a feminist. (So end the conversation as quickly as possible!).
If you hear the right answer to question one, you can move on to question two: “Does man get his rights from other men?” If you hear a “yes” you are talking to a liberal. If you hear “Did you mean to say ‘persons’” you are still talking to a feminist. (I thought I told you to end the conversation as quickly as possible!).
Roe v. Wade was (and is) a deeply flawed ruling because it is predicated upon the notion that man can grant rights to man not granted to him by God. The distinction between the first, second, and third trimesters was not based upon any long-standing legal doctrine. Nor was it based upon solid and reliable medical evidence. It was simply based upon identity politics.
Harry Blackmun, author of the majority opinion in Roe, once said “I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.” That was from his opinion in a death penalty case. But Blackmun also said that our “Constitution compels abortion on demand.” That basic human rights should be assigned in such an arbitrary manner does lend credence to Blackmun’s characterizations – made in a different context - of the Justices as “eccentrics” and “prima donnas.”
The authors of our Declaration of Independence - as well as the Framers of our Constitution – had a very different view of the origin and assignment of basic human rights. Lest we forget: “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 - To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …”
Medical technology has come a long way since 1973. It has told us what we knew in our hearts all along; namely, that abortion, regardless of the trimester in which it is performed, constitutes a deprivation of life initiated by our Creator.
Ultrasound technology allows us a better view of the target of the procedure known as abortion. It takes little intelligence to understand that something that is moving (and growing) is indeed alive. Technology also shows us that a new heart is beating within a month of conception. Surgical abortions are not even performed until 6 to 7 weeks into the pregnancy.
This issue is important as the conservative movement seeks in future elections to make inroads among blacks, Hispanics, and younger voters. It is important because all three of these groups have something in common: They are clearly pro-life on the issue of abortion.
Younger voters are moving in the direction of life simply because they are the first generation to grow up with basic access to and familiarity with ultrasound technology. With the help of this younger generation, which now responds to opinion polls, the country passed the 50% mark in opposition to abortion just two years ago.
So it would be politically disastrous for the conservative movement to compromise on abortion. We are in the enviable position of being out in front on an issue that is consistent with both our political goals and our deeply held principles. Leave it to the opposition to argue that men have endowed us with an unalienable right to stop a beating heart.
This world looks diligently for ways to oppose God. It hates Him. Abortion is just one more example.
“So it would be politically disastrous for the conservative movement to compromise on abortion. We are in the enviable position of being out in front on an issue that is consistent with both our political goals and our deeply held principles. Leave it to the opposition to argue that men have endowed us with an unalienable right to stop a beating heart.”
It therefore follows that this and similar *social* issues should NEVER be put on the back burner as some politicians have suggested. To do do would trample the morally virtuous foundation of a healthy society.
Understanding the reality that once a thing has been done it shall continue and per-mutate into ever expanding form is the hard part. It is even harder to understand that this phenom of human manifestation is unstoppable and quite necessary.
From thermonuclear devices to abortions, none of them are going anywhere soon... Unless the former negates the latter. The only method to negate the impact of immoral things lies within the individual.
I think the biggest scam going is this idea that we have to put a hold on our social conservatism in order to win elections. John Adams said that our system of government will only work with a moral and just society. You can’t name one society whereby the government conrols the means and mode of production (some form of communism) and find a religious society. They are godless and lacking of morals. Godlessness and communism go hand in hand.
Actually, you're more than likely talking to someone who sleeps around and wants to be able to dispose of the consequences of their irresponsible behavior.
Dr Adams hit that one into the parking lot...thanks Ma’am...
Maybe, maybe not. Its sort of a “camel’s nose in the tent” type thing.
The RINOs keep trying to kick us out of the tent. We use “fiscal issues” to get back in the tent, then we try to bring up the social issues again...
That's an unfortunate understatement! God did not merely intend to create a human being, God did create a human being.
Bonhoeffer's statement that ". . . this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of its life" is one of what America's Founders would have called a "self-evident truth," isn't it?
Further, that "nascent human being" has been deprived of its liberty!
Herein lies the very foundation and heart of the founding philosophy which resulted in the American Constitution's protections.
Thomas Jefferson further capsulized the Declaration's assertions:
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."
To believe that the unborn child does not possess Creator-endowed rights and the liberty enjoy them equal to that of a full-term individual, whether a woman, a judge, or a physician challenges the underlying premise of our founding documents
This is manifestly untrue. Abortion is just killing by abortion. It is defined by no particular technology, and is no more immune from political remedy than killing by knife, poison, garotte, vehicle or baseball bat.
None of these killings can be eliminated 100% by legal proscription, but all of them can be reduced significantly by legal proscription.
What is intolerable, is the claim that the state has right authority to create two legal classes of human beings, one with rights and one without.
One is either CONSERVATIVE....or not. The CONSERVATIVE CAMELS need to take control of their tent!
;-)
It dawned on me a decade-or-so ago that "Choice!" and "AIDS Research!" were the two sides of that coin.
And that a person's membership in one class or the other is a matter of geography - on one side of the cervix, a person has rights; on the other side, they don't.
I knew I should have not posted this thread... Some things just compel.
Abortion is nothing short of a genocide. In my humble opinion.
Any state that can force a woman to have a baby can likewise kill that baby. There are necessarily consequences, none of them pleasant. There is a balance at this point, unpleasant as it is, it simply is a thing that exists.
Technologically expedited abortion is a reality that is going nowhere, sooner or later.
I thought the elimination of abortion via thermonuclear device was quite clever. Then again, do not we all think such about our views...?
Godspeed to you
We are half way there today.
You say "Any technology that manifests is never going away, regardless of how repulsive its nature may be."
But how is that the point? Nobody expects the "technology" to "go away," any more than we expect other potentially deadly technologies (the knowledge or ability to manufacture heroin and meth, WMD's or wretched perverted child pornography) to "go away." Technologies don't go away. But nevertheless, civilized societies must find ways to restrain them, or the civilized societies will "go away". Our so-called civilization will be shoveled into the incinerators, annihilated.
No society can eliminate crime, atrocity, sin; but every society must do what it can to proscribe them, to restrain them, to limit their destructive impact. No one believes abortion can be "eliminated."
But we all believe it can and must be restrained.
You say, "Abortion has been technically refined to a simple process."
Irrelevant. So has meth manufature been refined to a simple process. That doesn't stop the law enforcement people from shutting down meth "kitchens" wherever they find them, all through my beautiful state of Tennessee.
You say, "Any state that can force a woman to have a baby can likewise kill that baby."
Nobody can absolutely force a woman to have a baby. She "has" it (in the sense of becoming pregnant) 99% of the time by her own free will, by permitting somebody to deposit sperm in her genital tract, the classic baby-making activity. She does that, as I said, 99% of the time with consent. Then if she conceives and wants to kill the baby, there have been surgical instruments and abortive drugs as long as there have been sharp blades, black cohosh, quinine and pennyroyal. And the option of leaving one's unwanted newborn baby in a dumpster. That can't be completely prevented: but it can be intelligently, humanely and persistently suppressed, by education, by medical awareness campaigns, by intervention, and by law enforceent.
Legal curbing of abortion is not going to come about by shacking women, which God forbid. The curbing is going to be accomplished the same way it was in, say, the days of Susan B. Anthony: by shutting down abortionists.
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.