Apologizing for the Right to Life
Apologizing for the Right to Life
Steve Farrell
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
Missing the Mark With Religion, Part 20
Six years ago, in a presidential debate, one of the candidates was handed a heaven-sent moment to testify before millions of Americans that defending the life of an unborn child is both morally right and constitutionally sound. The candidate, who frequently referred to himself as a Christian, failed to deliver on cue.
In response to the point-blank question by presidential debate moderator Jim Lehrer, "Are you pro-life?" the conservative candidate responded, "I'm pro-life."
That could have been and should have been the candidate's harbinger, a launching-pad testimony from which logical, moral, and legal reasoning might have majestically sprung forth and inspired a nation to sit up and take notice.
But the man didn't launch for life; he merely sputtered. Both before and after his ‘bold' confession, he played the game politicians feel they must play, reiterating an oft-repeated vow that there will be no pro-life "Litmus Test" when he selects Supreme Court justices.
"Look at my choices" in my home state, he stated. The problem is, some did. Three of the four chosen – in their first ‘test of faith' – shut down the right of parents to council with their own minor child regarding an impending abortion! Unwisely, the Pro-Life candidate, who was then serving as governor, signed into law a Parental Notification Act that radically gave that state's supreme court the authority to write the guidelines rather than spelling them out in legislation, thus permitting his state's high court to legislate from the bench against parents, against life, and against the spirit and letter of the U.S Constitution and our state Constitutions that mandate legislation take place in our congresses and legislatures – that is, from the representatives of the sovereign people.
Is this what the candidate was referring to when he promised "strict constitutionalism" – turning the lawmaking power over to unelected men appointed for life? He might as well have handed Beelzebub a blank check.
But there is another problem. If a man really believes in the right to life then he ought to let the public record match the private man. He ought to say in his heart, ‘because I believe in life, I therefore have a duty to stand up for, protect, and enforce life.' And then he ought to reach down deep inside and find reasons to take a bold, consistent, and intelligent public stand for life, as all of us should.
There are, after all, a few good moral, political, and legal reasons that life ought to be protected. Consider:
1. In the Unites 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 do trespass the rights of another, the moment we push through that line in the sand, our actions must be checked. It's just not right to claim that the violation of someone else's rights 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 slay innocent babies within the womb? Legalizing the casual, even routine shedding of innocent blood by their parents and their physicians is not liberty. Any judge who believes that it is does not understand the law, and it is he, not the pro-life judge, whose fitness for the highest judgeship in the land should be suspect.
2. In the United States freedom of choice should never mean freedom from consequences. Ask any loving and successful parent if they deem it wise to shield their children from the natural consequences of their actions. They will tell you: ‘Don't do it!' They will tell you: ‘It's a big mistake!' Better that our children be free to "learn by the things which they suffer" and spend a semester or two in the school of hard knocks. It is, as the prophet taught, in the "furnace of affliction" where we are refined and chosen. Why then use the law to fight against Natures greatest teacher, adversity? We shouldn't.
3. In the United States we believe that a nation is only as good as its families, and so we should sustain not subvert parental authority. We, therefore, must insist that parents, not the government, and not school psychologists, have the primary responsibility to teach, care, nurture, and provide for THEIR children. They are the dispensers of values; they are the one's who have their children's best interests at heart; and they are the one's who must live with their children's mistakes, not just in the short term, but till the end of their days. Therefore, it is the parent who has the right – and in the eyes of God – the parent who has the duty to stand up for the life of that unborn child and counsel with their minor child to 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 proven abuse, or where other family members are unavailable to assume parental duties – to step in and undermine the authority and sacred duty of a parent. To do so, except in such cases, 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, Jews, or people of other faiths 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 religious beliefs and obligations, nor to exceed the powers the people delegated to it by the people in the Constitution. So why should we stand idly by when it does? We shouldn't.
5. Finally, in the United States, we ought to stand by life because God gave us life, and it is sin to thoughtlessly, selfishly, and brutally destroy men and women who have been made in His image. Therefore, we ought to stand by life because it is the right thing to do.
Indeed, there are a few good reasons to stand up for life. There are more. We ought to find them, teach them, and share them with others. This "Pro-Life, ‘non-litmus test' candidate didn't. He missed the mark with religion, missed the mark about "thou shalt not murder" as do the rest of us who unwisely, even cowardly follow this ‘non-litmus test' example.
If we would find the mark, it's time we Christians and Jews and all men who believe in Natural Rights defend Pro-Life as a logical, legitimate, legal test – for the defense of life is a fundamental function of any legitimate state.
Contact Steve
NewsMax pundit Steve Farrell is associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, the editor of The Liberty Letters (LibertyLetters.blogspot.com), and the author of the highly praised inspirational novel "Dark Rose" (available at amazon.com).
Steve Farrell
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
Missing the Mark With Religion, Part 20
Six years ago, in a presidential debate, one of the candidates was handed a heaven-sent moment to testify before millions of Americans that defending the life of an unborn child is both morally right and constitutionally sound. The candidate, who frequently referred to himself as a Christian, failed to deliver on cue.
In response to the point-blank question by presidential debate moderator Jim Lehrer, "Are you pro-life?" the conservative candidate responded, "I'm pro-life."
That could have been and should have been the candidate's harbinger, a launching-pad testimony from which logical, moral, and legal reasoning might have majestically sprung forth and inspired a nation to sit up and take notice.
But the man didn't launch for life; he merely sputtered. Both before and after his ‘bold' confession, he played the game politicians feel they must play, reiterating an oft-repeated vow that there will be no pro-life "Litmus Test" when he selects Supreme Court justices.
"Look at my choices" in my home state, he stated. The problem is, some did. Three of the four chosen – in their first ‘test of faith' – shut down the right of parents to council with their own minor child regarding an impending abortion! Unwisely, the Pro-Life candidate, who was then serving as governor, signed into law a Parental Notification Act that radically gave that state's supreme court the authority to write the guidelines rather than spelling them out in legislation, thus permitting his state's high court to legislate from the bench against parents, against life, and against the spirit and letter of the U.S Constitution and our state Constitutions that mandate legislation take place in our congresses and legislatures – that is, from the representatives of the sovereign people.
Is this what the candidate was referring to when he promised "strict constitutionalism" – turning the lawmaking power over to unelected men appointed for life? He might as well have handed Beelzebub a blank check.
But there is another problem. If a man really believes in the right to life then he ought to let the public record match the private man. He ought to say in his heart, ‘because I believe in life, I therefore have a duty to stand up for, protect, and enforce life.' And then he ought to reach down deep inside and find reasons to take a bold, consistent, and intelligent public stand for life, as all of us should.
There are, after all, a few good moral, political, and legal reasons that life ought to be protected. Consider:
1. In the Unites 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 do trespass the rights of another, the moment we push through that line in the sand, our actions must be checked. It's just not right to claim that the violation of someone else's rights 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 slay innocent babies within the womb? Legalizing the casual, even routine shedding of innocent blood by their parents and their physicians is not liberty. Any judge who believes that it is does not understand the law, and it is he, not the pro-life judge, whose fitness for the highest judgeship in the land should be suspect.
2. In the United States freedom of choice should never mean freedom from consequences. Ask any loving and successful parent if they deem it wise to shield their children from the natural consequences of their actions. They will tell you: ‘Don't do it!' They will tell you: ‘It's a big mistake!' Better that our children be free to "learn by the things which they suffer" and spend a semester or two in the school of hard knocks. It is, as the prophet taught, in the "furnace of affliction" where we are refined and chosen. Why then use the law to fight against Natures greatest teacher, adversity? We shouldn't.
3. In the United States we believe that a nation is only as good as its families, and so we should sustain not subvert parental authority. We, therefore, must insist that parents, not the government, and not school psychologists, have the primary responsibility to teach, care, nurture, and provide for THEIR children. They are the dispensers of values; they are the one's who have their children's best interests at heart; and they are the one's who must live with their children's mistakes, not just in the short term, but till the end of their days. Therefore, it is the parent who has the right – and in the eyes of God – the parent who has the duty to stand up for the life of that unborn child and counsel with their minor child to 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 proven abuse, or where other family members are unavailable to assume parental duties – to step in and undermine the authority and sacred duty of a parent. To do so, except in such cases, 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, Jews, or people of other faiths 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 religious beliefs and obligations, nor to exceed the powers the people delegated to it by the people in the Constitution. So why should we stand idly by when it does? We shouldn't.
5. Finally, in the United States, we ought to stand by life because God gave us life, and it is sin to thoughtlessly, selfishly, and brutally destroy men and women who have been made in His image. Therefore, we ought to stand by life because it is the right thing to do.
Indeed, there are a few good reasons to stand up for life. There are more. We ought to find them, teach them, and share them with others. This "Pro-Life, ‘non-litmus test' candidate didn't. He missed the mark with religion, missed the mark about "thou shalt not murder" as do the rest of us who unwisely, even cowardly follow this ‘non-litmus test' example.
If we would find the mark, it's time we Christians and Jews and all men who believe in Natural Rights defend Pro-Life as a logical, legitimate, legal test – for the defense of life is a fundamental function of any legitimate state.
Contact Steve
NewsMax pundit Steve Farrell is associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, the editor of The Liberty Letters (LibertyLetters.blogspot.com), and the author of the highly praised inspirational novel "Dark Rose" (available at amazon.com).
posted by shummer60 at Tuesday, June 06, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home