Sanctity of Life

THE DETAILS

 

There are several aspects of the sanctity of life that I wish to address so as to give you the fullest understanding of my position with regard to this most important of principles and issues. These are the major headings and the order in which they will be discussed:

 Definitions

Abortion

In the purest sense of the term, abortion only means an early termination.  It is used in the military as in “abort the mission.”  It only means an early termination of the mission.

The early delivery of a child in order to save its life is an abortion in that it is an early termination of the pregnancy, as in “abort the pregnancy.”  However, in this case the expected (or HOPED) result of this type of an abortion is in preservation of the life of the unborn child.

The way that the term abortion is used in society today means that the expected result of the early termination of the pregnancy is the death of the unborn child.  In this context the term abortion is synonymous with murder.  Where the term abortion is synonymous with murder is the way that the term abortion will be used throughout the rest of this writing.

Abortifacients

An abortifacient (Latin: that which will cause a miscarriage) is a substance that induces abortion.

 Exceptions

Typically, there are only three “exceptions” that anyone ever mentions when discussing the “right to life” issue. During the presidential elections of 2012, the Republican Nomine for president, Mitt Romney said that he was “Pro-life, with the exception of “Rape,” “Incest,” and “Life of the Mother.”

Life of the Mother exceptions

First, I do not consider “life of the mother” as an exception to the 100% Pro-Life stance.  In cases involving the life of the mother, the purpose for an early termination of the pregnancy is not to terminate life, but to save life. When faced with this circumstance, the doctor is trying to save both lives.

However, the most typical situation in which a woman’s life is threatened by pregnancy involves ectopic (tubal, cervical, or abdominal) pregnancies.  More often than not, the unborn child is already dead in these cases.   Further, when it comes to the “life of the mother” (not the health of the mother) versus the “life of the unborn child,” it is an issue that has to be determined by the woman in consultation with her doctor, counselor, and family.

Rape & Incest exceptions

Rape is a horrible atrocity that robs women of their dignity as human beings and incest is a horrible atrocity that robs children of their innocence made even more heinous when a pregnancy is the result.  However, I do NOT believe that the unborn child should be made to pay for the sins of the father.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

~~ Deuteronomy 22:25-27

NOTE: If there is anyone who deserves to die, it is NOT the unborn child, but the perpetrator of the crime. Death is the Biblical punishment for rape.  In fact, life is precious; so much so that according to the Bible, in addition to rape and murder, “kidnapping” was punishable by death as well.

Adoption is an extremely viable option and a wonderful alternative to murdering an unborn child. (Please see “Adoptions” below for a more in-depth discussion there.)

And yes, I am perfectly aware that being pregnant with a child as a result from rape or incest is a horrible thing to deal with. But it is only for nine months, and then it is over with. Murdering an unborn child is something that the mother has to live with for the rest of her life.

LET THE UNBORN CHILD LIVE!

 Federal Responsibility

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…

~~ Declaration of Independence

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

~~ Article V, Bill of Rights

Contrary to many of those within “the Liberty Movement” I do believe that the “Right to Life” issue fully and justifiably belongs within the purview of the federal government and not just as a “states rights’ issue. The life issue is FIRMLY ESTABLISHED within the tenets of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, thus making it a federal issue.

The Declaration of Independence -

As noted above in the Declaration of Independence, we find these words, “unalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS.”  I believe that these three precepts are the premise to our constitutional society and are in precedent order - LIFE comes before Liberty, Liberty comes before Happiness; and the pursuit of happiness is the least of these three, though still a very important premise to our way of life. Further, I believe that is because these three very important principles have been inverted in their importance that we find society in the chaos that it is. There is the idea that “the pursuit of happiness” is the primary objective and that this trumps another’s “Liberty” and that a person’s Liberty trumps another’s “Life.” And it is in my opinion that this moral philosophy got its foothold in the Pepsi Generation of “If it feels good, do it.”

Only when society gets back to the right precedent order as established by the Declaration of Independence, will we see the trend of things finally reverse themselves.

The Bill of Rights -

In the Fifth Article of the Bill of Rights (Otherwise known as the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) we find these words, “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” Obviously, there is a STRONG connection between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution on the issue of life; the difference being “the Pursuit of Happiness” vice “Property”

Again, the fact that both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution establishes the purpose for the federal government being the protection of life, makes it an immutable fact, that the “Right to Life” issue belongs properly within the protection and purview of the federal government.

 Personhood

I considered discussion the issues of personhood under the topic of "Federal Responsibility" as I believe we need to take action federally to protect the life of the unborn "person."  However, the importance of personhood is so important that I gave it its own heading.

There is one, and only one, Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that I support, and that is the “PERSONHOOD AMENDMENT,” declaring that a human being is a PERSON, from conception until natural death.”

This year (January 22, 2013), marks the 40th anniversary on the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. The only reason that Roe v. Wade decision was made and left to stand for 40 years now is the fact that the Supreme Court has been able to make the definition of a person as being someone who has been able to escape the womb. Otherwise, the courts would have to fight on behalf of “the person.”

The most heinous part of this is that there was has been permitted “partial birth abortions” where the baby is slaughtered while hanging half-way out of the woman’s body. With just its lower torso left to escape, the baby is murdered.

As can be noted in the discussion of "When Life Begins," a new life is created at conception.  The problem is with the conferment personhood. We MUST force the Supreme Court to recognize that a human being is a person from conception until natural birth. We MUST rip the definition out of the hands of those who would sanction of this wanton murder of an innocent human being. And sadly, the only way to do this is through an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This issue is VERY similar to the issue that surrounded the ratification of the 15th Amendment that provided the guarantee that people, regardless of race or color, will be permitted to vote. PLEASE NOTE: this did NOT confer any new rights. Remember, if the Constitution can confer rights, they can take rights away.

According to the Declaration of Independence, they already had this right, “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.”

Blacks did not gain a new right. Blacks already had the right to vote by virtue of being created equally. The following statement seems the almost bizarre in needed to state it, which must be exactly how Thomas Jefferson felt when he penned the words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident…

As with blacks, unborn children (who are nothing more than the beginning of us) are created equally.

How bizarre, the need to make such a statement, since without having unborn children, there would never be born children; whether they be black, white or any other race.

Soooooo…. Like the 15th Amendment which did not “create” a new right, but merely guaranteed its recognition among the several state, there is the necessity of a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating, “A human being is a person from conception until natural death and shall be accorded the fullest protect of law at every stage in their life.

 Other Issues Regarding the Sanctity of Life

In the discussion of the Sanctity of (or right to) Life, there are several many, many issues involved in the issue the Sanctity of Life issue. I’ll take a short moment to discuss those as well.

When does life begin?

I’ve heard it said, “Life begins at conception.”  For years that was my stance as well and still is.  However, after many discussions over the years with people through out this nation, I have learned a lot and believe I have come to the following conclusion regarding the issue as to "When LIFE Begins.

While I will agree that a "NEW" life begins at conception, the fact is that life is neither created nor begins at conception.

There was only one time in the history of this world when life was created, whether you believe in creation or evolution.  In the creation story, ALL life was created by God and the first human being to be created was Adam.  In the evolutionary story, a single-celled organism was animated into life by a lightening strike and evolved into a human being.  So regardless whether it was Adam & Eve or the single-celled organism, life had a VERY succinct beginning and has been a continuum of that life ever since.

It is an incontrovertible fact that the elements from two separate lives that are living organisms converge and form a new human being that becomes a new life at conception and that new life is a person that warrants the fullest protection of the law accorded any person regardless of the stage of life that person is in.

In the summer of 2011, my wife had a complete heart physical done, to include a stress test at which a “Super Ultrasound” (Echocardiogram) was done before the test and after the test. During the echocardiogram, I was talking with the technician who told me that with the echocardiogram, they can detect a baby’s heart beat at 4 days after conception.

The point is that no matter what you call “IT” (fetus, tissue, blob of flesh, embryo, or unborn child), “IT” is alive and it is a life that is separate from that of its mother (which, the DNA of that flesh medically proves).

The only matter that is up for debate is at what point in this “New life” becomes “a person.”  For the pro-abortionist, personhood begins once that life has been able to escape the womb; as if something magical happens in that moment and the life that has been developing inside the mother’s womb is now something more than it was inside.  Both medical and scientific data shows that the only thing that is different once the baby is outside the mother’s womb is that it now breathes air through the nose and mouth and consumes food through the mouth.  Apparently, for some, this is the defining element of personhood.  It certainly seems to hold true in the Terri Schindler-Schiavo case.  Since she was not able to feed herself, she must no longer have been a person.

The bottom line is that a “new life” or person is created at the moment of conception.

Abortifacients

As noted in the definitions, an abortifacient is a substance that induces abortion.

Once there is conception, I am opposed to any sort of killing the unborn child; I don’t care how “early” in the stage of development. I am strongly opposed to forcing pharmacies to provide such an abortion tool against the moral conscience of the owners.

Adoption

Adoption is an extremely viable option and a wonderful alternative to murdering an unborn child. In the case of rape or incest, I am not suggesting that the mother be “forced to raise an unwanted child”; especially where it is a teenage (or God forbid younger) pregnancy and the child is unable to care for the baby. In fact, typically, adoption would most likely be the better choice to raising a child who would likely become the object of hate and contempt for the wrong that was suffered. However, there are exceptions to that rule as well, as I know of rape victims who conceived and viewed the birth of the baby as the one bright spot in the horrible circumstance.

However, we need adoption reform in this country. There are plenty of (traditional family) couples who can not bear children who would love to adopt, but “the system” is prohibitive. I’ve known several couples who have adopted children from other countries because of this. This is insane.

Further, religious organizations have been “put out of business” by our federal government because of (high) standards that they had in place for adopting children. I stand against this intrusive posturing by our federal government into issues of religion that are, quite frankly, forbidden to do by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. Clearly, setting standards based upon moral and religious principles is an infringement on this right.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

I stand firmly against EMBRYONIC stem cell research.  There is no way to harvest a stem cell from an embryo, without killing the unborn child.  To-date, there has been no positive results achieved from embryonic stem cell research and all funding should cease immediately.

However, not all "Stem Cell Research" is bad.  There have been positive results achieved through ADULT stem cell research and it is this research that is beneficial.  Unlike embryonic stem cell research, adult stem cell research does not kill the host from which the stem cell is harvested.

Euthanasia

In today’s society we have become a culture of death. With all the government sanctioned abortions and killings around the world, it is no wonder that life has such little meaning and more and more we are victims or witnesses to horrific shootings and mass killings.

We have become more interested in the dignity of death rather than the sanctity of life. We believe that we should not take the life of a murderer, but believe we should have the choice to kill an innocent “unborn” child.

Terri Schindler-Schiavo’s road to death made it appallingly evident how far removed our government and society has come in this MOST IMPORTANT of responsibilities; the protection of LIFE.

With the marvels of modern scientific and medical technology there is no necessity for a "Mercy Killing."  So I stand against this abhorrent practice.

Capital Punishment

For those who may think it that capital punishment is incongruent with the “pro-life” position, at issue is “INNOCENCE.” For a more in-depth statement on the issue of Capital Punishment, please click on the side menu item for [Capital Punishment].

Options

What do you tell a pregnant teenage girl who comes to you and says that unless she has an abortion, her father is going to kick her out of the house?

What do you tell a pregnant wife who comes to you and says that unless she has an abortion, her husband is going to divorce her?

In times like these you better have something better to say than simply "do not kill your baby!"  You better be able to help her with options or that unborn child will be aborted.

I have learned a lot over the years about the importance of providing options to those who are considering having an abortion. Through my wife, Lisa and her training with Birthright International, (while stationed in California during the 80s) I learned that most women do NOT want an abortion, but they feel trapped whether by financial, social, family or other issues, and have no idea what their options are and how to act on them.

Birthright is an awesome organization that not only stood against abortions, but provided options. There are many other such organizations and resources.