Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

RONALD REAGAN: ABORTION AND THE CONSCIENCE OF A NATION
The Human Life Review ^ | Spring, 1983 | Ronald Reagan

Posted on 09/28/2002 7:43:05 PM PDT by Askel5

Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation

Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan, while sitting as the fortieth president of the United States, sent us this article shortly after the tenth anniversary of Roe v. Wade; we printed it with pride in our Spring, 1983 issue, and reprint it now, after Roe's twentieth anniversary, just as proudly.

The 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade is a good time for us to pause and reflect. Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people nor enacted by our legislators— not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. But the consequences of this judicial decision are now obvious: since 1973, more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our nation's wars.

Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born. Yet that is what the Court ruled.

As an act of "raw judicial power" (to use Justice White's biting phrase), the decision by the seven-man majority in Roe v. Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court's decision has by no means settled the debate. Instead, Roe v. Wade has become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.

Abortion concerns not just the unborn child, it concerns every one of us. The English poet, John Donne, wrote: ". . . any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life— the unborn—without diminishing the value of all human life. Wesaw tragic proof of this truism last year when the Indiana courts allowed the starvation death of "Baby Doe" in Bloomington because the child had Down's Syndrome.

Many of our fellow citizens grieve over the loss of life that has followed Roe v. Wade. Margaret Heckler, soon after being nominated to head the largest department of our government, Health and Human Services, told an audience that she believed abortion to be the greatest moral crisis facing our country today. And the revered Mother Teresa, who works in the streets of Calcutta ministering to dying people in her world-famous mission of mercy, has said that "the greatest misery of our time is the generalized abortion of children."

Over the first two years of my Administration I have closely followed and assisted efforts in Congress to reverse the tide of abortion— efforts of Congressmen, Senators and citizens responding to an urgent moral crisis. Regrettably, I have also seen the massive efforts of those who, under the banner of "freedom of choice," have so far blocked every effort to reverse nationwide abortion-on-demand.

Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed. But the great majority of the American people have not yet made their voices heard, and we cannot expect them to—any more than the public voice arose against slavery—until the issue is clearly framed and presented.

What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives—the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.

The case against abortion does not rest here, however, for medical practice confirms at every step the correctness of these moral sensibilities. Modern medicine treats the unborn child as a patient. Medical pioneers have made great breakthroughs in treating the unborn—for genetic problems, vitamin deficiencies, irregular heart rhythms, and other medical conditions. Who can forget George Will's moving account of the little boy who underwent brain surgery six times during the nine weeks before he was born? Who is the patient if not that tiny unborn human being who can feel pain when he or she is approached by doctors who come to kill rather than to cure?

The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life? The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother's body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law— the same right we have.

What more dramatic confirmation could we have of the real issue than the Baby Doe case in Bloomington, Indiana? The death of that tiny infant tore at the hearts of all Americans because the child was undeniably a live human being—one lying helpless before the eyes of the doctors and the eyes of the nation. The real issue for the courts was not whether Baby Doe was a human being. The real issue was whether to protect the life of a human being who had Down's Syndrome, who would probably be mentally handicapped, but who needed a routine surgical procedure to unblock his esophagus and allow him to eat. A doctor testified to the presiding judge that, even with his physical problem corrected, Baby Doe would have a "non-existent" possibility for "a minimally adequate quality of life"—in other words, that retardation was the equivalent of a crime deserving the death penalty. The judge let Baby Doe starve and die, and the Indiana Supreme Court sanctioned his decision.

Federal law does not allow federally-assisted hospitals to decide that Down's Syndrome infants are not worth treating, much less to decide to starve them to death. Accordingly, I have directed the Departments of Justice and HHS to apply civil rights regulations to protect handicapped newborns. All hospitals receiving federal funds must post notices which will clearly state that failure to feed handicapped babies is prohibited by federal law. The basic issue is whether to value and protect the lives of the handicapped, whether to recognize the sanctity of human life. This is the same basic issue that underlies the question of abortion.

The 1981 Senate hearings on the beginning of human life brought out the basic issue more clearly than ever before. The many medical and scientific witnesses who testified disagreed on many things, but not on the scientific evidence that the unborn child is alive, is a distinct individual, or is a member of the human species. They did disagree over the value question, whether to give value to a human life at its early and most vulnerable stages of existence.

Regrettably, we live at a time when some persons do not value all human life. They want to pick and choose which individuals have value. Some have said that only those individuals with "consciousness of self" are human beings. One such writer has followed this deadly logic and concluded that "shocking as it may seem, a newly born infant is not a human being."

A Nobel Prize winning scientist has suggested that if a handicapped child "were not declared fully human until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice." In other words, "quality control" to see if newly born human beings are up to snuff.

Obviously, some influential people want to deny that every human life has intrinsic, sacred worth. They insist that a member of the human race must have certain qualities before they accord him or her status as a "human being."

Events have borne out the editorial in a California medical journal which explained three years before Roe v. Wade that the social acceptance of abortion is a "defiance of the long-held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition, or status."

Every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not. As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the "quality of life" ethic.

I have no trouble identifying the answer our nation has always given to this basic question, and the answer that I hope and pray it will give in the future. American was founded by men and women who shared a vision of the value of each and every individual. They stated this vision clearly from the very start in the Declaration of Independence, using words that every schoolboy and schoolgirl can recite:

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.

We fought a terrible war to guarantee that one category of mankind— black people in America—could not be denied the inalienable rights with which their Creator endowed them. The great champion of the sanctity of all human life in that day, Abraham Lincoln, gave us his assessment of the Declaration's purpose. Speaking of the framers of that noble document, he said:

This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures. Yes, gentlemen, to all his creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on. . . They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children and their children's children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages.

He warned also of the danger we would face if we closed our eyes to the value of life in any category of human beings:

I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?

When Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee the rights of life, liberty, and property to all human beings, he explained that all are "entitled to the protection of American law, because its divine spirit of equality declares that all men are created equal." He said the right guaranteed by the amendment would therefore apply to "any human being." Justice William Brennan, writing in another case decided only the year before Roe v. Wade, referred to our society as one that "strongly affirms the sanctity of life."

Another William Brennan—not the Justice—has reminded us of the terrible consequences that can follow when a nation rejects the sanctity of life ethic:

The cultural environment for a human holocaust is present whenever any society can be misled into defining individuals as less than human and therefore devoid of value and respect.

As a nation today, we have not rejected the sanctity of human life. The American people have not had an opportunity to express their view on the sanctity of human life in the unborn. I am convinced that Americans do not want to play God with the value of human life. It is not for us to decide who is worthy to live and who is not. Even the Supreme Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade did not explicitly reject the traditional American idea of intrinsic worth and value in all human life; it simply dodged this issue.

The Congress has before it several measures that would enable our people to reaffirm the sanctity of human life, even the smallest and the youngest and the most defenseless. The Human Life Bill expressly recognizes the unborn as human beings and accordingly protects them as persons under our Constitution. This bill, first introduced by Senator Jesse Helms, provided the vehicle for the Senate hearings in 1981 which contributed so much to our understanding of the real issue of abortion.

The Respect Human Life Act, just introduced in the 98th Congress, states in its first section that the policy of the United States is "to protect innocent life, both before and after birth." This bill, sponsored by Congressman Henry Hyde and Senator Roger Jepsen, prohibits the federal government from performing abortions or assisting those who do so, except to save the life of the mother. It also addresses the pressing issue of infanticide which, as we have seen, flows inevitably from permissive abortion as another step in the denial of the inviolability of innocent human life.

I have endorsed each of these measures, as well as the more difficult route of constitutional amendment, and I will give these initiatives my full support. Each of them, in different ways, attempts to reverse the tragic policy of abortion-on-demand imposed by the Supreme Court ten years ago. Each of them is a decisive way to affirm the sanctity of human life.

We must all educate ourselves to the reality of the horrors taking place. Doctors today know that unborn children can feel a touch within the womb and that they respond to pain. But how many Americans are aware that abortion techniques are allowed today, in all 50 states, that burn the skin of a baby with a salt solution, in an agonizing death that can last for hours?

Another example: two years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a Sunday special supplement on "The Dreaded Complication." The "dreaded complication" referred to in the article—the complication feared by doctors who perform abortions—is the survival of the child despite all the painful attacks during the abortion procedure. Some unborn children do survive the late-term abortions the Supreme Court has made legal. Is there any question that these victims of abortion deserve our attention and protection? Is there any question that those who don't survive were living human beings before they were killed?

Late-term abortions, especially when the baby survives, but is then killed by starvation, neglect, or suffocation, show once again the link between abortion and infanticide. The time to stop both is now. As my Administration acts to stop infanticide, we will be fully aware of the real issue that underlies the death of babies before and soon after birth.

Our society has, fortunately, become sensitive to the rights and special needs of the handicapped, but I am shocked that physical or mental handicaps of newborns are still used to justify their extinction. This Administration has a Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, who has done perhaps more than any other American for handicapped children, by pioneering surgical techniques to help them, by speaking out on the value of their lives, and by working with them in the context of loving families. You will not find his former patients advocating the so-called "quality-of-life" ethic.

I know that when the true issue of infanticide is placed before the American people, with all the facts openly aired, we will have no trouble deciding that a mentally or physically handicapped baby has the same intrinsic worth and right to life as the rest of us. As the New Jersey Supreme Court said two decades ago, in a decision upholding the sanctity of human life, "a child need not be perfect to have a worthwhile life."

Whether we are talking about pain suffered by unborn children, or about late-term abortions, or about infanticide, we inevitably focus on the humanity of the unborn child. Each of these issues is a potential rallying point for the sanctity of life ethic. Once we as a nation rally around any one of these issues to affirm the sanctity of life, we will see the importance of affirming this principle across the board.

Malcolm Muggeridge, the English writer, goes right to the heart of the matter: "Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other." The sanctity of innocent human life is a principle that Congress should proclaim at every opportunity.

It is possible that the Supreme Court itself may overturn its abortion rulings. We need only recall that in Brown v. Board of Education the court reversed its own earlier "separate-but-equal" decision. I believe if the Supreme Court took another look at Roe v. Wade, and considered the real issue between the sanctity of life ethic and the quality of life ethic, it would change its mind once again.

As we continue to work to overturn Roe v. Wade, we must also continue to lay the groundwork for a society in which abortion is not the accepted answer to unwanted pregnancy. Pro-life people have already taken heroic steps, often at great personal sacrifice, to provide for unwed mothers. I recently spoke about a young pregnant woman named Victoria, who said, "In this society we save whales, we save timber wolves and bald eagles and Coke bottles. Yet, everyone wanted me to throw away my baby." She has been helped by Save-a-Life, a group in Dallas, which provides a way for unwed mothers to preserve the human life within them when they might otherwise be tempted to resort to abortion. I think also of House of His Creation in Catesville, Pennsylvania, where a loving couple has taken in almost 200 young women in the past ten years. They have seen, as a fact of life, that the girls are not better off having abortions than saving their babies. I am also reminded of the remarkable Rossow family of Ellington, Connecticut, who have opened their hearts and their home to nine handicapped adopted and foster children.

The Adolescent Family Life Program, adopted by Congress at the request of Senator Jeremiah Denton, has opened new opportunities for unwed mothers to give their children life. We should not rest until our entire society echoes the tone of John Powell in the dedication of his book, Abortion: The Silent Holocaust, a dedication to every woman carrying an unwanted child: "Please believe that you are not alone. There are many of us that truly love you, who want to stand at your side, and help in any way we can." And we can echo the always-practical woman of faith, Mother Teresa, when she says, "If you don't want the little child, that unborn child, give him to me." We have so many families in America seeking to adopt children that the slogan "every child a wanted child" is now the emptiest of all reasons to tolerate abortion.

I have often said we need to join in prayer to bring protection to the unborn. Prayer and action are needed to uphold the sanctity of human life. I believe it will not be possible to accomplish our work, the work of saving lives, "without being a soul of prayer." The famous British Member of Parliament, William Wilberforce, prayed with his small group of influential friends, the "Clapham Sect," for decades to see an end to slavery in the British empire. Wilberforce led that struggle in Parliament, unflaggingly, because he believed in the sanctity of human life. He saw the fulfillment of his impossible dream when Parliament outlawed slavery just before his death.

Let his faith and perseverance be our guide. We will never recognize the true value of our own lives until we affirm the value in the life of others, a value of which Malcolm Muggeridge says:. . . however low it flickers or fiercely burns, it is still a Divine flame which no man dare presume to put out, be his motives ever so humane and enlightened."

Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.

 

Published by:

The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
215 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10016



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Philosophy
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-160 next last
To: Askel5
Thank you for posting this.
41 posted on 09/28/2002 9:11:21 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
The greatest American president of the 20th century.

No argument here. Of course, you and I probably both regard FDR as more notorious and hideous than "great", but he will go down as probably the most "important" President of the century. Hopefully, once all the seeds Reagan planted germinate and spread, we can finally undo some of FDRs most dubious achievements. It is interesting how with the passage of time Reagan's impact becomes more clear, and more impressive. Or maybe it's just me (I was a teenager during the Reagan years.) I gotta pack it in for the night. Regards,

42 posted on 09/28/2002 9:13:36 PM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I dunno, in terms of importance I think FDR still has Reagan beat...look around you at the American Welfare State, where neither party has any concept of limited government or of the Constitution's purpose. Reagan is by far the greatest; but it remains to be seen whether his (mostly positive) legacy will be as enduring and powerful as FDR's (absolutely negative, plus/minus a Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan).
43 posted on 09/28/2002 9:28:25 PM PDT by Lizard_King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I give FDR a lot of credit for his handling of WWII. He gave America strong leadership when it was most needed. I can't fault him at all. After all, it was FDR's and Truman's leadership, that brought the free world victory over nazi facism and the imperialism of Japan.

But I can't say the same about his handling of the 1930`s depression. He injected government into the lives of the American people to such a degree, we're still feeling the effects today. FDR forced America into Roosevelt's form of socialism-lite. And let's not forget, it was WWII that ended the Great Depression and not the policies of FDR.

OTOH, when Ronald Reagan took office, he was faced with the worst economic conditions since the Great Despression. Thanks for nothing, Jimmah Carter. However, Reagan's fiscal policy really did work and within two years of implimenting his economic agenda, America was getting back on track. Reagan's increased military budgets and his foreign policy of peace through strength, won the Cold War, wiping out communism in Europe, while ending the Soviet Union for good.

I'd say, Reagan wasn't only a greater president then FDR, but also he was a more important leader then FDR was. In fact, I'd place Ike and TR ahead of FDR, in that regard.

So i'm a little biased, what can I say.

44 posted on 09/28/2002 9:35:39 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I hate to give credit to a Dem, but Truman did come through when it counted. He was up to his ass in alligators for the entirety of his term, most of them direct foreign threats.

He made some damn hard calls. The Bomb. The Greek Civil war. The Iron Curtain. The Berlin Airlift. Korea. The failed haberdasher was the guy on call for development of the H-Bomb and supersonic flight - and was in charge when the current DoD and intelligence services were reorganized into their current form.

Really remarkable, but a uniquely American story.

45 posted on 09/28/2002 9:43:54 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
And in my book, for those things, I have to place Truman up there with Reagan for looking out for our interests against foreign powers.

And I'm with you on lauding Reagan - a true great.

46 posted on 09/28/2002 9:48:39 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
I think George W.Bush is a combination of some of the best parts of Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan, all rolled into one. He didn't have the resume that Ike had, but who did, or the conservative credentials of Reagan. Like Harry Truman, Bush has answered the call of duty and is doing a remarkable job for the American people.

Another uniquely American story.

47 posted on 09/28/2002 9:49:20 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
FDR, Truman and JFK were US presidents who understood their Constitutional duties to serve, protect and defend the US from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. However, while FDR implimented a socialist lite program, Truman and JFK were social liberals. No doubt about it.

Harry Truman supported every aspect of FDR`s socialist agenda called the New Deal. He even proposed his own 21-Point Plan in 1945, which eventually was called, Truman's Fair Deal. It included a national heathcare insurance, expansion of Social Security, a full-employment program, a permanent Fair Employment Practices Act, public housing and slum clearance, aid to education, civil rights legislation, universal military training and an increases in the minimum wage.

I'll give Truman credit for having a strong national defense agenda and America first foreign policy, but IMO, Harry Truman was no Ronald Reagan. Then again, there was only one Reagan.

48 posted on 09/28/2002 9:55:49 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Agreed - no doubt about it.
49 posted on 09/28/2002 9:58:13 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
Thanks for posting this. A good read.
50 posted on 09/28/2002 10:02:39 PM PDT by hoosierpearl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
FDR was powerful ... but Reagan was great.
51 posted on 09/28/2002 10:05:36 PM PDT by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
"I will add this - after 30 years, people would normally learn to quit banging their heads against the wall, and are expected to learn to change methodology. Either the Right to Life powers that be are not very smart, or some people, (not completely unlike like some docs running abortion mills) have learned that it is profitable to be ideologically pure in a singularly unproductive way, and that by sounding pure, they can keep well intentioned people on the string for material support.

Always follow the $$$."

Bingo. But following the racial demographics will get you there quicker.

52 posted on 09/28/2002 10:16:07 PM PDT by toenail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
m
53 posted on 09/28/2002 10:50:03 PM PDT by Nick Thimmesch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Nick Thimmesch
???
54 posted on 09/28/2002 11:05:28 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
A nation which MURDERS over 20 million of its own children has no business asking God why 9/11 happened.
55 posted on 09/28/2002 11:08:39 PM PDT by Kobyashi1942
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kobyashi1942
Ah. The terrorists as the "divinely inspired hand of god" argument. Basically confirming your agreement with OBL and the Taliban. I've seen that before, and it repulsed me then.

Begone, and take your sick, cultlike pseudotheology with you, loser.

56 posted on 09/28/2002 11:12:36 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Kobyashi1942
"Many have asked me about the screen name. Kobyashi was a pilot on the Japanese carrier Hiryu who still flew off to attack the CV Yorktown, despite his own plane having damage that ensured that his trip would be a one way mission. I take my hat off to his bravery."

Well, now. I'm not saying a word.

57 posted on 09/28/2002 11:25:34 PM PDT by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Kobyashi1942; DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
On second glance, I can't help but wonder if you might have admired those islamonazis as they slammed into the WTC? You seem the type.
58 posted on 09/28/2002 11:28:45 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Kobyashi1942
A nation which MURDERS over 20 million of its own children has no business asking God why 9/11 happened.

At the heart of the evil that struck us on September 11th … and I can’t say this often enough … at the heart of that evil was the terrorists’ disregard for the intrinsic worth of innocent human life.

And what does that mean? It’s obvious what it means. It means … that on September 11th, we weren’t struck by new evil. That evil may have come from Osama bin Laden but it was not a discovery of new evil. No. What we saw on September 11th, what we saw in the collapsing buildings, what we saw in the death toll that we could finally appreciate, what we saw in the grief of the families was the awesome consequence that arises when we ignore the intrinsic meaning and worth of Innocent Human Life.

But let us not pretend that we made such a discovery on September 11th. For, long before Osama bin Laden struck his blow against the innocent lives in the planes and the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, there has been throughout this land – in the cities and the towns and the byways – blows struck against innocent life that should have been more sacred, more precious to us even than those lives should have been to him!

[… that ] as we declare war upon terrorism, as we declare war upon that principle of evil which lies at its heart …

We are declaring war upon that that Evil which for -- the sake of this Agenda and that Convenience and that Fanaticism is -- willing to raise a hand of force and deadly force against Innocent Life.

But if we pray down destruction on the head of Osama bin Laden for that violation of innocent life, we had better be aware that we pray down destruction as well on a nation that is willing to enshrine in principle a right to administer the selfsame blow to those innocent lives of our offspring that ought to be more sacred in our obligation to God than any others.

Alan Keyes (American Life League Conference, New Orleans 2002)

59 posted on 09/28/2002 11:31:08 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
So in addition to being a grifter who is playing to his marks, Mr. Keyes plays to marks that despise their nation.

Nice role model you've picked.

60 posted on 09/28/2002 11:36:43 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-160 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson