Why I am pro-life

“Facebook and politics don’t mix.” How many times have you heard that? That is basically my stance as I rarely post anything on there (rarely anything that could be considered political anyway). What about WordPress and politics? I have considered myself to be apolitical for the past couple of years, but I sense a pendulum swing in fundamental ideological thought in our country right now. I think people are getting a little rattled by what they believe are messages that don’t identify with our founding fathers’ ideals and basic beliefs. These are standards and tenets to which they firmly held; they anticipated that the majority of future citizens would continue on in agreement. But what has become of common sense and Christian values?

Is fighting for the rights of the unborn classified as being political? My preacher has said on occasion that this is not a political issue, but a human—and spiritual—issue. If “you can’t legislate morality,” then let me pose some questions related to that statement. Is it immoral to murder? That is forbidden by civil laws. Is it immoral to drive 120 m.p.h. with a young child unbuckled in the front seat of a compact car? I think that would also be forbidden by civil laws. Is it immoral to provide alcoholic beverages to a minor, so much that he is later killed in his own drunk-driving accident? I think you get the point. I don’t think that meth production should be made legal (or smoking pot, for that matter), just because “people are going to do it anyway.”

Some of our lawmakers feel like their hands are tied by the Roe v. Wade court decision (1973). Here is what my U.S. Congressman, Billy Long, says about it:

“I am 100 percent pro-life. I believe in the sanctity of human life, that life begins at conception, and in protecting the rights of the unborn. I have co-sponsored several pro-life bills. If passed, these bills will establish that life begins at conception. . . . I will fight to stop legislative and related measures, which allow taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. Moreover, I will continue to work with my colleagues to protect the rights of the unborn.” He has also stated, “When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, it threw open the doors for abortion without giving the people an opportunity to make their views known on the issue through their elected representatives. Through the years, the judicial protection for abortion has continued in opposition to the expressed will of the majority of the people.”

Congressman Long has also said, “Abortion is an intensely personal issue which inspires deep passion on both sides, and I recognize the strong feelings it evokes.” I agree with Mr. Long, but I think we should set aside our emotional passion for a while, so we can strictly look at the issue logically and legally. If we do, I really think the pro-life position is the position that will prevail. Consider the legal aspects. Is it constitutional? What about the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment? It protects the rights of the common criminal; however, it would seem, according to the SCOTUS, it does not apply to our unborn citizens. The one who has committed heinous crimes is entitled to “due process of law”; this Amendment also protects his “life” and “liberty.” It appears that the unborn children have no advocate or jury to stand up for them. Life and liberty are not afforded to them in the same way.

Some would cite the Fourteenth Amendment as a basis for protecting the mother’s right to choose. But I have found some information from lifenews.com that seems to bring this into question:

“To reach its result,” Justice William Rehnquist thus concluded in his dissenting opinion, “the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”

Blackmun’s reasoning was ridiculous, his facts erroneous, his key historical claims demonstrably false. The process behind the decision was appallingly shoddy. Roe and Doe constituted a full-blown exercise in policy-making—the arbitrary (untethered to the Constitution) invention of a new nationwide abortion policy to reflect the personal preferences of a majority of the justices.

Even pro-choice legal experts don’t try to defend Roe on its merits. “What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure,” wrote the eminent constitutional scholar and Yale law professor John Hart Ely. “It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”

But the greatest Book of truth is the Bible. Shouldn’t everyone be assured that God holds us in the palm of His hand? I believe this should be true from conception. God is the Creator. Shouldn’t we let Him be in control of life and death? I will conclude with this from gracewalkchurch.wordpress.com: “If God knows the number of hairs on our heads (Luke 12:7) and He formed us in our mother’s womb (Jeremiah 1:5 & Psalm 139:13) surely He has us in the palm of His hand, right?” Let us not try to overpower God!

I welcome comments. I know that there are other very thoughtful opinions. Please feel free to express them here. Thank you.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s