NOTE: The following is from a discussion that took place on Facebook.
"From the national platform. The national platform strips victims of their right to terminate a pregnancy that's the result of rape or incest."
~~ Ben Myers
First, Ben, I am glad and impressed that you have read the Constitution Party National Platform.
HOWEVER, you make an erroneous interpretation of the platform, especially its Sanctity of Life plank. The national platform does not "strip" anyone of their rights. The national platform espouses our belief that NO ONE has a "right" to murder - legally or otherwise.
Second, as I have run as a Constitution Party candidate a couple of times, I have a website that maintains my issues and how I stand on them. Specifically, I have a page called, “The Details” where I talk about most of what I will be posting here.
Third, I want to make a clarification in the discussion of “rape and incest.” For sake of this discussion, I am going to categorize rape and incest as one and the same -> Rape. The reason is that I’m not going to be dealing with the issue of incest, but only rape. Though, I will say this, “Rape is Rape” regardless whether it is by a family member or not. But I believe it is even more heinous, if it is done by a family member, because as a family member they should be the one to protect the other from such crimes.
Now for the discussion - -
Ben, here’s the irony. You demand that a woman has the right to kill her innocent unborn child and while I’ve never seen you state it, my assumption is that you would allow the perpetrator of the horrendous crime of rape to live. Do you not see the irony here?
Additionally, don't you find it ironic that a court can find a man guilty of committing two murders if a pregnant woman is killed and her unborn child is killed as well, and yet the woman can decide to kill her own baby and it’s ok??
It seems that you have something against “religion.” So, for the moment let’s just kick religion and its definitions to the curb for a moment and talk about the science.
Modern Medical Science proves that an unborn child (a fetus, as you call it), is a person with its own personality and DNA; it HAS A HEART BEAT WITHIN 21 DAYS AFTER CONCEPTION; it feels emotions, has and demonstrates fear; it has dreams; etc., etc. I’ll provide a few references for you, if you would like to begin your own discovery of the truth.
- 15 Crazy Facts About the Fetal Heartbeat
- "Hearing those heartbeats is proof to the parents that there really is a new person growing in there."
- Baby's First Dreams: Sleep Cycles of the Fetus
- Babies Listen and Learn While in the Womb
- This one is just for fun; an unborn baby clapping its hands
I find it both interesting and peculiar, that you keep using the phrase, "Religious Definitions" as if they have no validity. Most people who are knowledgeable Constitutionists, would agree with the God's established Hebrew Law as codified in the 22nd Chapter in the Book of Deuteronomy, which provides for the death sentence for the perpetrator of rape. YES, it provides for the death of the criminal perpetrator who raped the woman; NOT the innocent child who may have been the result of the horrific crime of violating a woman sexually.
Interestingly, self-professed atheist, Michael Badnarik wrote in the 2nd chapter of his book, “Good to be King” that human beings have an “inherent” right to LIFE, Liberty and property. He makes the point that these rights are inherent to a person the way heaviness is an inherent property of lead. I HAPPEN TO AGREE!! However, just like most people, there is a gulf in how the inherency is applied in the American legal system.
Good to be King
I had the occasion back around 2010 to have a conversation with Mr. Badnarik and I made the statement to him that he (and I am sure the you as well, Mr, Ben Myers) absolutely disagreed with our Founding Fathers. To which he became very intense (I would say angry). I told him that he disagreed with where this inherency came from. You see? Our Founding Fathers signed a document written by Thomas Jefferson called the Declaration of Independence. In there, they also recognized the inherency of the right to LIFE, Liberty and Happiness (happiness later changed to reflect property) to have been an ENDOWMENT from the creator. His anger then abated and he responded, “Oh, I see! That just depends on whether you believe in God or not.” I then responded, “Ok… Let’s go down that road. For the sake of argument, I’ll take the position with you that there is no God, which means, then, that this inherency had to have happened through the process of evolution. So, then, let me ask you a question.”
I asked: “When did this inherency begin? Did it begin when that first ape swung out of the tree and began to walk upright?”
He gave me the “deer in the headlight” look.
“Ok, maybe I need to go further back. Did this inherency begin when that first amphibian began to walk a dry earth?”
Still, the deer in the headlight look.
“Oh, OK. I guess we need to go back to the very beginning. Did this inherency to the right to LIFE, Liberty, and property be begin when that first cell split?”
To which he walked away.
The reason that I relate this story under the heading of “THE RELIGIOUS” is because I do believe in the inherency to the right to LIFE, Liberty and Property, but I believe as our Founding Fathers did, that this inherency is an endowment from our Creator.
Mr. Badnarik’s 2nd Chapter, that I referenced in the above story is entitled, “Rights vs. Privileges”. You can download a copy of his 2nd chapter for free from his website:
So, it seems Mr. Ben Myers, that you would disagree with both Michael Badnarik and our Founding Fathers, that there is no such right of LIFE, Liberty and property. In ALL your postulations, you suggest that the right to LIFE is a privilege bestowed upon us by the U.S. Constitution. And the point that I agree with Michael Badnarik on is that if the RIGHT TO LIFE is nothing more than a privilege bestowed upon us by our Constitution, then all our lives are subject to the whims of our government, just as those of the unborn are now.
As you are so fond of, let’s do talk about the legal protection of human life. Because you are right, the courts have upheld the legality of a woman murdering her child in utero by recognizing a human being as to having the right to life only once it has been able to escape the confines and protections of a woman’s womb.
While you may be right about the current legality of the issue, just as Ricardo Davis pointed out, it does NOT justify the killing of an innocent human being and it should be stood against. Here are some quotes for men more intelligent than I on the matter of “legal definitions”:
"Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus, it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence."
~~ Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ia-Ilae, q. xciii, art. 3, ad 2m.
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
~~ Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from a Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
~~ Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
While you may be right about the legality of the issue, just as Ricardo Davis pointed out, it does NOT justify the killing of an innocent human being.
Therefore, just as there was a need for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forcing the courts to recognize the FULL PERSONHOOD of ALL PEOPLE, I believe there is another Constitutional Amendment that is needed and that is the “PERSONHOOD AMENDMENT” which should simply say:
“Personhood shall be conferred upon all human beings from conception until natural death.”
Thereby taking the definition of when a human being becomes a person under the law out of the hands of the legislature and the courts; thereby rendering the fullest protection of the 5th Amendment upon ALL PERSONS, to include the innocent unborn children and others who cannot speak for themselves.