Thursday, October 09, 2008

Some Inconvenient Truths

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. The Declaration of Independence; July 4, 1776.

Of all the issues that divide Republican and Democrat candidates, none is more crucial this election year than the issue of protection of human life, from conception to natural death.

Sadly, the party that has traditionally stood for human rights, for the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized, is the party that has made abortion a sacramental rite on the altar of lies.

Yes, lies.

Lie #1:
We don’t know when life begins.

There are some inconvenient truths that Democrats have been scrambling to deny ever since the advent of Roe v. Wade in 1973, which took away some states’ rights to outlaw abortions. The court found a privacy clause in the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, which they used to support their majority opinion. The opinion dismissed the concern that the unborn might also be entitled to some of these rights to privacy, stating that since we are unable to know when life begins, we must not worry ourselves about it. Yet, wouldn’t the more prudent stand be one of preserving life, even the very possibility of life?

Thanks to advancements of modern science and medical technology, there is now, no doubt about when life begins. Whether or not an unborn child has human rights, is another question, which can only be decided by the legislature and the courts.

Lie #2
Abortion is a women’s health issue.

Waiting in the wings, for a Democrat-controlled legislature and presidency, is the “Freedom of Choice Act,” which would overturn any and all state regulations on abortion, such as: parental notification laws, regulation on unsafe abortion clinics, abortions provided by non-physicians, and taxpayer funded abortions for any and all reasons, including sex selection and as a form of birth control. It would also overturn the federal ban on partial birth abortions, which the Supreme Court upheld in 2007.

The high priest of this religious zealotry is Senator Barack Obama, who, on his own website states: “…it's never been more important to protect a woman's right to choose. Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect women's health. With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women's fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election.”

Interestingly, “women’s health,” is a vague term which is batted around as if abortion is somehow a form of preventive medicine, like vaccinations or flossing. Common sense tells us abortion is less about women’s health and more about doing away with inconvenient children.

Lie #3:
The declaration of human rights is above our paygrade.

Since the Democratic leadership seems to be spending a great deal of time discussing the abortion issue, let’s examine some of the things they’ve been saying:

Sen. Barack Obama, at the Saddleback Forum, was asked by Pastor Rick Warren: “When does a baby get human rights?” Note, he didn’t ask him, “When do you think life begins?” as has been quoted throughout the media. He asked him, “When does a baby get human rights?” This is a perfectly reasonable question to ask someone running for public office. The protection of human rights should be paramount to the duties of public office. The government is in the business of deciding what rights will be granted to which people.

Instead of answering, “Under Roe v. Wade, a baby gets human rights if that baby is chosen to get rights by its mother; otherwise, it's when the baby is born into an environment where a live birth is desired;” Sen. Obama said, "You know…I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my paygrade."

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was asked by Tom Brokaw to comment on Sen. Obama’s answer to the above question, but Brokaw misquoted Pastor Warren’s question, saying, “what would you say to Sen. Obama about the question of when life begins?” Her misguided answer drew immediate rebuke from Catholic bishops throughout the United States. There is no question that she misrepresented thousands of years of Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life. Yet she was not held accountable by the media for her wrong answer.

Senator Joe Biden’s comments on abortion are even more puzzling. Jumping into the fray after Obama and Pelosi, Biden was asked on Meet the Press, “When does life begin?” His response was that he knows when it begins for him. “Look, I know when it begins for me; it’s a personally [sic] and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I’m prepared to accept the teachings of my Church.”

Author aside: Joe…Can I call you Joe? I have some more questions for you, Joe: Since when is the question of when life begins a “personally and private issue”? Can the beginning of life be anything other than a scientific fact? Are you saying there are multiple realities? What’s alive for you may not be alive for another? And, if you’re really prepared to accept the teachings of your Church, which says it is a grave sin to assist one in procuring an abortion, including voting for laws enabling abortion, then how can you say you’re “pro-choice”? And if, as you say, “…life begins at conception…” how can a just and free country allow the killing of that life, based on the inconvenience of the child?

While we may disagree on the appropriateness of doing away with inconvenient children, there must be no doubt that abortion is the taking of a human life. Science can and does answer with specificity when life begins. It is our elected officials who must decide when human rights begin.

No comments: