The bourgeois leisurely Europeans turned a blind eye for most of the Holocaust...Easy to turn a blind eye to abortion and other evils now — so long as they don’t directly affect from your immediate (misguided) vantage — but it’s precisely this level of apathy and ignorance that gives rise to movements of history and change that eventually will.
One can blame the rampant rise in extreme leftism in our government and unhinged leftism in our media and culture to the apathy of Christians and conservatives who let society go too easily. We tell mothers it’s ok to kill their own children and we wonder why we have children killing children in our schools.
But abortion has been litigated in the public square for decades.
I accept that there are many people who haven't taken the time to form strong opinions, but I don't think there are many who are ignorant.
No matter, if a private party wants to run a forum/picture site/whatever and keep it free from pitched political battles I'm not going to have the feds tell them they can't.
It isn't as if there aren't countless places where abortion can be and is argued.
Until now, there has existed a strange silence on the subject of the Progressive Left's absolute insistence on promoting the "destroying" of human life in the womb.
On the underlying question moral question discussed here, nothing addresses it better than the simple logic of this quotation from Mother Teresa, who, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC on February 3, 1994, as cited above, stated: "And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"
Mother Teresa's declaration may be the most powerful statement in 2016 from which to begin discussions of where a candidate stands on all the questions of life and liberty.
The sole reason these rights were deemed unalienable is that both are derived from the Creator--not from the mother or father, and not from government or judicial decision. What is "granted" by human decision also can, by implication, be withheld.
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them (life and liberty)," said Thomas Jefferson.
"The world is different now. . . and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address
That understanding underlies every other consideration embodied in our Declaration of Independence and every protection of our Constitution. It is the very basis of our rights to life and liberty, of laws to protect them, and it distinguishes ours from other forms of government.
When we fail to acknowledge that foundation of our liberty, then we risk liberty itself for future generations, for where does the right to choose who lives and who does not really end?
That is why the question is of vital importance in each election. Already, we have deprived millions of their Creator-endowed rights to life and liberty, and our nation must be weaker for their loss. We need leaders who understand the implications and potential consequences of departing from our founding principles.
In recent decades, technological advances have enabled us to observe the characteristics and actions of God's tiniest creations in the womb. Unlike previous generations who could not see, we have no excuse for imagining that these are mere blobs of tissue labeled "fetuses." In their early weeks, we now can see that they are living babies who will continue on to possess life and liberty if we do not "destroy" both. Indeed, they are simply smaller versions of ourselves.
Questions on the economy, taxes, threats from terrorists, health care--all are considerations at this election time. One, however, may be basic to all others. Who will best protect the underlying premise of our Constitution--and the lives and liberties of millions yet unborn?
Promises are illusive and cheap. One fact is indisputable, however: the Far Left's agenda for unbridled Socialism (an economic system must rely on population control for its existence) is not compatible with our Constitution's premise.