Thinking About Life On The 37th Anniversary of Death

37 years ago the Supreme Court found a faux right to abortion in the constitution.   I don’t know how fierce the abortion debate was prior to this one decision but fierce doesn’t begin to describe the fight since.  

Abortion has created a dividing line between pro-life (anti-abortion) and pro-choice (for abortion) factions.  It is the issue that separates conservative Republicans from so-called moderate Republicans.   With Democrats if you’re pro-life you cannot speak at one of their conventions.  So, whose tent is larger?

Besides creating a right out of whole emperor’s cloth, the Court’s Roe decision gave political cover to many politicians.  As a politician, you can claim a position on either side and never have to prove it because Roe tends to block or shield legislative action.  Well, for now at least. 

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am not pro-life.  I believe the state has the obligation and duty to put to death criminals so sentenced, I support sending our military to other countries to kill our enemies, and I don’t believe in turning the cheek; deadly force is the surest form of self-defense.   I am anti-abortion, especially when used as a form of birth control like it can be under this right.

But pro-life is the term and I will go with that. 

Pro-life also encompasses not just the unborn, but euthanasia, too. 

This anniversary has me thinking about a few things. 

Think about the irony that the day the Court decided some human life forms are not worthy of life follows so closely to the day we honor the man, Martin Luther King, Jr., who challenged the government to view all humans as worthy equally. 

I think about how some pro-choice (amazing, like one specific act of sodomy abortion is the right whose name cannot be spoken) activists proclaim we pro-lifers are just a bunch of intolerant hypocrites.   Their straw-man argument goes something like this:  You’re pro-life now, but wait until your daughter comes home pregnant, or you’re pregnant with a deformed baby, or you’re sick with a debilitating illness!  Then you will change your mind. 

Lets look at three people who are known as pro-life:  Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and Sarah Palin. 

In 1994, Reagan left the public stage of his life when he revealed he had Alzheimer’s.  Over the years this insidious disease left the former president who conquered the Soviet Union completely disabled.   His mind, memory, and personality were slowly erased.   It got to the point where he only knew his son Michael as the man who hugs him. 

I don’t know what kind of bravery or courage it takes to know you have a disease that slowly destroys your life before taking your life.   But he knew.   Nature took its course and he died in 2004, ten years after being diagnosed. 

Pope John Paul II was a contemporary of Reagan and like him another lion of liberty against communism.  And like Reagan, he too suffered from a debilitating disease; his was Parkinson’s.

The Pope suffered from this for 14 years until he died in 2005.   

Both men knew the horrors of their respective diseases and yet, they chose life and let death come as it may on its own schedule.  It was by God’s or nature’s hand they died and not by man’s. 

Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin was pregnant with a Down’s syndrome baby.  Trig was born in 2008.  While campaigning as the vice-presidential running mate of Senator John McCain, she found out her teen daughter was pregnant by her boyfriend.

Palin not only carried her Down’s syndrome child to term and birth, she did not hide or try to get rid of, abort, the scandal of her young daughter’s pregnancy.  Her grandson was born later in ’08. 

Three strikes and the straw-man is out. 

Lastly, I think about how the dominoes are falling. 

Thursday the Supreme Court overturned much of campaign finance reform (McCain-Feingold) and re-affirmed free speech, political speech as written in the first amendment.

This ruling overturned decades of precedent. 

What was once thought of as settled law was ripped up and speech, all political speech, regardless of the source was freed. 

The left are apoplectic about this ruling. 

One reason is they want to silence voices of dissent. 

But, I think they know that if this bit of precedent, settled law as it were, can fall; what can be next.   Roe? 

We may be one case away from another precedent shredding ruling. 

Then liberty and the pursuit of happiness will be reunited with life.

, , , , , ,

  1. #1 by thekidupstairs on February 5th, 2010 - 1:29 am

    Your words?:

    In the spirit of full disclosure, I am not pro-life. I believe the state has the obligation and duty to put to death criminals so sentenced, I support sending our military to other countries to kill our enemies, and I don’t believe in turning the cheek; deadly force is the surest form of self-defense. I am anti-abortion, especially when used as a form of birth control like it can be under this right.

    But pro-life is the term and I will go with that. —— (Huh?)

    Pro-life also encompasses not just the unborn, but euthanasia, too. —–(Um…)

    .

    Hope that you never pick a side, since I believe that you haven’t: (Pro-Choice/Pro-Life). And because I believe that there are not only two sides: Republican/Democrat….

    How you can praise a woman who claims to be ‘pro-life’ as she used her resources to shoot defenseless Moose from a HELICOPTER is beyond me. She then bragged about her ‘Moose Soup’ through the media. May as well fish out of a tub, or pick up chicks with GHB… How is she pro-life? You must be way more in-the-know than I am.

    How would she feel running naked through an open Alaskan landscape from a loud noise in the air that she knew was bad, as she couldn’t defend her ‘kids’ and then ‘PLUNK’ the head falls to the ground. Would you feel differently if she hunted your dogs from the air?

    Euthanasia: If someone’s that far gone, they don’t want to suffer… Why prolong someone’s pain? Religion? Catholicism? Yeah. And no one can accurately calculate how many people were wrongly executed through whomever’s laws/opinions/beliefs…. Most of them, I will guess.

  2. #2 by Al on February 5th, 2010 - 8:13 pm

    RE: The Kid Upstairs:
    Yes, they are my words. And I am sorry you are confused.
    I am ANTI-ABORTION.
    I do not consider myself Pro-Life because, as I stated, I am for the death penalty, for using our military to kill our enemies, and believe in self-defense.

    But “Pro-Life” is the umbrella word covering anti-abortion.

    I am for overturning the Roe decision.

    Clear?

    Next point:
    Somehow you equate killing animals with killing unborn humans. A false dichotomy. There is no equivalency between animals and humans. I don’t hunt but I do eat meat which involves killing animals. My hunting is done inside a grocery store. So, there isn’t a contradiction between protecting human life including the unborn and killing animals for food.

    As far as euthanasia, who decides? People can have “do not resuscitate” orders and living wills so that death may come. But we should not give the state or any one else in authority the power to kill off those whose care is inconvenient.

    I don’t understand your last point: “And no one can accurately calculate how many people were wrongly executed through whomever’s laws/opinions/beliefs…. Most of them, I will guess.”
    Are you claiming that most people executed are innocent?

    Of course, all persons convicted and sentenced to death have gone through extensive due process and legal appeals before the state finally kills them. A process that can take years. And a more thorough one than an unborn human gets from the pro-choice pro-abortion faction.

    But, I have a standing offer with anti-capitol punishment pro-abortion-choice folks: I will trade the death penalty for ending abortion. Any takers?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Comments are closed.


SetPageWidth