Friday, February 6, 2009

When Abortion results in murder, It's time to unite on our strategy

With the possibility of a new Supreme court seat opening soon, the debate will revolve again around conservatives claims that Abortion is murder and liberals claims that law can not be based on Religious dogma.

There is a recent story of a woman that delivered a live child before the abortion doctor arrived and one of the owners of the business, who was not a doctor, cut the imbilical and threw the living baby into a garbage bag. Even many liberals are reluctantly admitting this was murder.

The Republican party spends most of its time on the defense on the Abortion issue. When appointing Justices many conservatives have come to the conclusion that appointing strict constructionists, will result in overturning Roe, even if the left believes that strict constructionism is a gimick.

As a conservative, I often have other Republicans disagree with me on the nature of the Abortion debate.

They tell me that Abortion is murder and if you don’t make that the primary thrust of your argument then you are enabling the other side. Although I believe this story is more proof that the Abortion business swims in a culture of death, I think the most effective argument is more difficult for pro-abortionists to defend.

I consider myself constitutionally pro-life. What I mean by that is if one begins with the premise that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional because it is not based on any written words in the constitution then the end result is you thrust it back into the hands of the legislature and the states. If you agree with the basic premise that the state can not inject itself into decision making discussions between a woman and her doctor on whether to place a pair of scissors into the skull of a kicking and writhing baby as its body is still partially in the mothers body, then why is it not also an invasion of privacy for the state to inject itself into a private discussion between a woman and her doctor over Fee for service. This is what Hillary Clinton proposed in 1993. She argued that the state could forbid Doctors to engage in one on one arrangements with patients that wanted to pay directly for services.

My point is the essence of the Morality of the issue will not see the light of day if you do not move the debate to its proper place and that is out of courts and into legislatures. Then one can place the issue in context.

The context is important. Pope John Paul discussed a culture of life as opposed to the West’s devolving into a culture of death. George Bush often spoke of the culture of life and many people thought this was code speak. It wasn’t codespeak. He went into great detail about how we are moving into a new age where technology is getting ahead of our ability to thoroughly investigate as a society the moral implications of its usage. When Professors consider it enlightened to embrace cloning of humans, creating organ farms, and treating aborted fetuses like marketable commodities for their stem cells. When Universal Health care advocates argue that no matter how you have planned out your final years, you will be forbidden from planning for certain expensive life prolonging procedures if they will not substantially lengthen your life or if they are considered by the state to be excessively expensive. The same people will consider life prolonging procedures for those in coma or for those in pain or for those who in moments of depression wish to have others kill them. By the time my grandchildren retire, if the current technological advances remain in the free market, there will be technology available that people will be able to live with nearly half of there body replaced with artificial parts. There will come a time when the very meaning of what is human and what is a life will become confused if our society is not given the ability to debate and comprehend the moral implications of our decisions.

The meaning of conservativism is to not fly off the handle in the name of progress for its own sake. Our predecessors worked out centuries of difficult questions and handed us wisdom to consider. When George Bush discussed a culture of life, this is what he talked about.

When you read the above story and are shocked that a person could do such a thing, don’t be. It makes sense. This person who was not a doctor, ran a business. Every day this person sees babies in varying stages of development come into the light and then wrapped in a bag and then tossed into a pile like a used wad of Kleenex. It is not difficult to imagine a person so desensitized to the trivialization of life’s greatest miracle that they would eventually push it beyond the limits of the existing unconstitutional laws.

The left is often fond of claiming that the right is too focused on restricting people’s exposure to sexuality when in their minds exposure to violence is even more dangerous. What could be more violent than exposing someone to repetitive killing of babies everyday and then add to that a profit motive.

Whoever did this had reasons for doing it. It was either avoidance of legal trouble or protecting a financial stake in a business in which case it was murder because of greed. Or it was a person who has been brainwashed into believing newborns that are fully outside of a woman’s body and alive and screaming are somehow fair game for whatever violent act suits your fancy, as long as you don’t get caught. ...Or this person has just lost their moral compass due to a culturally imposed disregard for their fellow human beings.

Anyone of these overlapping motives has one thing in common. These disgusting motives are all extensions of what are considered “intellectually enlightened” arguments by the compassionate left like the decision of an adult supercedes the rights of a vulnerable child or It is nothing but a mass of tissue or these businesses need to not only be protected, but they need to be subsidized financially by the American public in many cases against their will.

George Bush’s culture of life, was tied into the Republican parties core beliefs in the universal liberty of all human beings, the primacy of the individual over the state, the philosophy of our founders, and a profound respect for the constitution as it was written by our founders.

If one can place the constitutional premise of Roe v. Wade and the philosophical argument regarding the ideas of our founders regarding individual rights and their belief in natural rights that protect a right to life, a right to protect your life and a right to be free to remain living, then the Religious and moral debate of whether it is murder will not be necessary, because we will have repealed Roe v. Wade and returned the issue to the People.

I think there are many pro choice Republicans that would become more vocal supporters of a strict constructionist unified platform and if the most dedicated pro-life advocates would show solidarity with them, the media's attempt to portray a split party would diminish.

The important thing is to win, not to convince your opponents you were right.

This is a very sad story of a very short life.

No comments: