Those defending slavery were free, those defending abortion were born; such is the nature of oppression.
Hitler killed nearly 6 million Jews during what is now called the Holocaust, and this was an atrocity of epic proportions. Communism killed multiple times as many as the Holocaust. But, it pales in comparison with the 30 million babies have been brutally murdered over the past 35+ years through D&E and other horrific procedures with our government’s blessing. This isn’t like being shot in the head and dying instantly. Babies are being, literally, ripped limb from limb as they are suctioned out or torn out of the mother’s womb. Truthfully, the real question is, “Why are we even asking these questions?” They are ludicrous. The only reason that anyone even asks these questions is so that they can justify this most barbaric of practices in a so-called “civilized” society. So, what is the real question that we should be asking?
When does life begin?
To answer this question, one must apply analysis at a cellular level. Sperm cells and eggs are produced and exist in their perspective host bodies without ever growing and evolving into a person. This is the natural life of a reproductive cell. Many of these cells are expended through natural processes and cycles, but it is only when these two cells (sperm & egg) successfully merge does fertilization or conception occur. If the same conditions are present before and after this point of conception, a developing human being will result*. Thus, at a cellular level, that human being only begins growing and developing as such, after the sperm cell successfully fertilizes the egg, therefore that person’s life began at conception.
*(This does not account for natural complications or other reasons why development is impeded.)
It’s the Law!
“No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” - 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
The definition of ‘person’ is ‘A human being regarded as an individual.’ So if a person’s life begins at conception, they are entitled to protection of their rights under the law.
...We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
- Declaration of Independence
But is the Declaration of Independence U.S. Law?
When determining historical application to today, intent is key. John Hancock (in his capacity as president of the Second Continental Congress) and James Madison both considered it to be, in Madison
The bottom line is that The government’s primary responsibility is to protect the rights of it citizens, therefore, a person’s right to life is protected under law, which the government is required to uphold.
The bottom line is that The government’s primary responsibility is to protect the rights of it citizens, therefore, a person’s right to life is protected under law, which the government is required to uphold.
Solutions
Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional and contradicts the case made above. Notwithstanding the right to life as an inalienable right, endowed by our Creator, the U.S. Congress could pass a law defining ‘personhood’ as beginning at conception and **block any judicial activism to the contrary by including language that this law will not be subject to review, of which there is precedence, therefore negating the need for a Constitutional Amendment.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
- 14th Amendment of the U.S.
Section Five of the 14th Amendment expressly authorizes the Congress by appropriate legislation to enforce the guarantees of due process and equal protection contained in the amendment’s first section.
**(Exhausting a contradiction to the Separation of Powers and Independent Judiciary would be prudent in determining the viability of this effort.)
Who's next?
If the state or the courts can decide who deserves the protection of our Consitutionally guaranteed freedoms simply based on our physical location or our age, then who is, technically, safe? Abortion is currently legal in cases where the baby is under 24 weeks old (and even later in other “special” circumstances) because in the days of Roe v Wade, it was nearly impossible for a baby under 24 weeks to survive on it’s own outside the womb – so the baby isn’t a “person” at that point, right?
So, do YOU cease to be a citizen deserving of rights when you get into a car accident and are only still “living” as a result of medical life support? Could the state choose to decide as such? If a baby isn’t a “person” because he or she is not yet “viable” and could not live on it’s own (ie. without the “life support” system of the mother’s womb), then what about older people who need medical devices to extend their life or to enhance their ability to function normally?
Are they still a “person” with rights? What’s to stop the state from deciding that they are not? The same logic applies. They can’t sustain themselves. They are potentially a “burden” to the medical system and also to their families who would need to care for them. Why not “cut our losses” and just “abort” them – I mean MURDER them?
Obviously, to any SANE individual, this suggestion is nuts, as well it should be. My wife’s grandparents live in a basement apartment in our home and could not live on their own. Grandpa is basically blind and grandma has dementia, so it requires alot of work on our part to help take care of them.
BUT, they still have ALOT to offer, and I can’t imagine how any individual could justify stripping them of the rights they have been given by our US Constitution (and, more importantly, by our Creator) just because they are not physiologically able to live independently of others. And, yet, that is precisely the argument that is used to suggest that a baby under 24 weeks has no protections under the Constitution.
Other Links
