Posted on 10/10/2005 1:23:44 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
American Founder John Dickinson, writing in his "Letters from a Pennsylvania Farmer," noted that "a firm, modest exertion of a free spirit should never be wanting on public occasions."
In my opinion, the "no litmus test" approach to the defense of life doesn't make the cut as "a firm, modest exertion of a free spirit."
Either life matters, or it doesn't. Either life is a right, or it isn't.
If the president and his party are pro-life, they ought to reach down deep inside and find reasons to take a bold, consistent and intelligent stand for life. There are, after all, a few good moral, political and legal reasons that life ought to be protected.
Consider:
1. In the United States we have been taught that liberty is the freedom to pursue happiness as we see fit – just so long as we refrain from stomping on the rights of others in the process. The moment we trespass, the moment we cross that uncrossable line, our freedom ends.
It's just not right to claim that the violation of someone else's right to life is our right. We are not free to choose to defraud, to rob, or to maim; so how is it then that we are free to choose to murder, and in this case, take the life of a child within the womb because 'it is inconvenient' or 'expensive' or 'unexpected' or 'private.'
Private? We can't abuse our kids ‘in private'; so how is it that we can go so far as to take the life of a defenseless babe within the womb 'in private'? Which is worse?
A line has been crossed. Private choice does not extend to abuse, or murder, or anything like unto murder. Frankly, any judge who believes that it is not the case, and that life isn't sacred, and that the law ought not to defend life simply because some previous judge overthrew the right to life, does not understand the law, nor liberty at all. And it is he, not the pro-life judge or nominee, whose fitness for the highest judgeship in the land should be questioned.
2. In the United States freedom of choice should never mean freedom from consequences. Benjamin Franklin, opposing government safety nets in his time – which certainly state funded, and or legalized abortions are – noted:
To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with Deity; it is godlike. But if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance, [and let us add, promiscuity]?
He continues,
Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good.
Yet, isn't that precisely what we are doing when the state makes it legal to cover up, to run away, to shield from the brunt of our own poor choices? There are other ways to deal with unwanted pregnancies than taking life. They may be more difficult, but they are the path of integrity, personal growth and life.
God-given agency grants to mankind the right to make choices, not escape consequences. We should not defend laws that fight against God and Nature's Law of the Harvest.
3. In the United States we believe that a nation is only as good as its families, and so we have long sought to sustain, not subvert, parental authority. In relationship to abortion we therefore must insist that parents, not the state, have the primary responsibility to teach, care, nurture and provide for our children. We are the dispensers of values; we are the ones who have our children's best interests at heart; and we are the ones who must live with our children's mistakes, not just in the short term, but till the end of our days.
Therefore, it is the parent who must have the right and – in the eyes of God – the parent who must have the duty to stand up for the life of that unborn child and decide whether marriage, adoption or parent-assisted motherhood is the answer to their daughter's dilemma. No government should have the jurisdictional prerogative – except in cases of abuse – to step in and undermine the authority and sacred duty of the parent; to do so is an infringement upon the natural domain of parents and upon the religious duty given to parents by God. This must stop.
4. In the United States, nowhere do we read in its Constitution that the federal government has the right to authorize abortions, fund abortions or force Christians and Jews to pay for abortions in violation of their sacred right to religious freedom. By law, and by eternal principle, our government is forbidden to attack our religion. So why should we continue to permit this?
5. Finally, in the United States, we must stand by life because God gave us life, and it is sin to thoughtlessly, selfishly and brutally destroy precious babies, male and female, who have been made in His image. Therefore, we must stand by life, because it is the right thing to do.
Yes, there are a few good reasons to stand up for life. There are surely many more. The president and his party ought to, with "a firm, modest exertion," defend this right of every free man, every child of God. Instituting a American litmus test for life is certainly a reasonable place to start.
BTTT
I've always been in favor of litmus tests. Only those who would overturn Roe V. Wade should be appointed to the Supreme Court.
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.