Protecting the Unborn: A Step-By-Step Approach

Saddleback taught us an important lesson: presumptive Republican nominee John McCain says he knows when life begins. Democratic Presidential heir apparent Barack Obama does not.

But Obama’s agnosticism on the question of the beginning of life is actually nothing knew. In 1973, in the era before 4-D ultrasounds made their way into the lives of ordinary American couples, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to specify when life began in the historic case known as Roe v. Wade. In fact, when read with its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, Roe allowed for abortion to take place during all nine-months of pregnancy. That’s why abortionists were able to get away with the heinous practice of partial-birth abortion.

Nevertheless, the High Court has allowed for certain restrictions on abortion: parental consent, 24-hour waiting periods, requirements that women be told of the risks of abortion and alternatives to it. The Freedom of Choice Act, which Obama has co-sponsored, would wipe out such restrictions, leading to an even more permissive policy where abortion is concerned.

I would like to make the case that if unborn life were strictly defined in the law, our courts would be required to protect, rather than devalue, unborn children. That’s why I recommend passing state laws which would categorize the unlawful killing of unborn babies as murder. After that, legal protection could be extended to unborn boys and girls whose lives are snuffed out in abortion facilities.

According to America's Founders, life, and the liberty to enjoy it, are unalienable. The word, "unalienable," implies the great truth of Thomas Jefferson's summation that, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."

What many citizens today fail to reason through is that the so-called "right to choose," is an invented euphemism of recent decades designed to mask the ugly act of "destroying" the life and liberty of the child in the womb. So was the use of the word, "fetus," which is so much less personal than the word, "baby." By those euphemisms, an artificial right was bestowed by unelected justices of the Supreme Court of the United States on only one class of citizens (women) to destroy the Creator-endowed, therefore "unalienable" life and liberty of an as-yet-unborn citizen.

This question is the most important one to be considered in the 2008 election of a President.

Consider the logic utilized by those who say they personally oppose taking the life of the child in the womb, but believes in the trite and tired old phrase of "a woman's right to choose."

Why could a 70-year-old daughter not use the same reasoning to apply to a "right to choose" to get rid of an elderly mother whose care is threatening her own health? (And don't say it is not realistic to claim the health risk that many face!)

Or, why should the nation's law not provide that same "right to choose" to both men and women who consider another individual to be a threat to their personal health or wellbeing, an inconvenience to their lifestyle, or merely a burden they cannot take care of?

Clearly, America's laws against the taking of life do not allow for a citizen's "right to choose" murder as an optional way of solving a personal dilemma, no matter how perplexing or burdensome.

Unmask the faulty logic of the fence sitters, and let them articulate what is their real reason for favoring the taking of a life in the womb! Is it not possibly because they do not see children in the womb as beings "endowed by their Creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

The candidate who is most likely to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand this basic principle underlying our liberty and the American Constitution is the only logical choice to lead this nation, in this voter's humble opinion!

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.