Abortion stops a beating heart, and is a decision by one human being to end the life of another human being. Both end up being victims – the first wounded, the second killed.
Our government was instituted to secure our God-given (“endowed by [our] Creator”) unalienable Rights, including Life:
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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Again, our government was instituted to secure our God-given (“endowed by [our] Creator”) unalienable Rights, including Life. That is why murder is illegal. And it is why abortion should be illegal. No woman should be forced to raise a child that she doesn’t want to raise (she is free to put the child up for adoption), but no woman should be allowed (or pressured) to kill a child.
This isn’t about the mother’s body, it’s about the child’s body. Every cell in the mother’s body has her unique DNA. Every cell in the developing baby’s body has its own unique DNA. That baby is a temporary resident of the mother’s body, not a part of it, and the mother has no right to terminate that baby’s life as if it is just another part of her body. This isn’t like removing a kidney. It’s ending another human being’s life, violating one of their Creator-endowed unalienable Rights.
God formed you in your mother’s womb:
For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
Thus says the LORD who made you
And formed you from the womb, who will help you:
‘ Fear not, O Jacob My servant;
And you, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer,
And He who formed you from the womb:
“ I am the LORD, who makes all things,
Who stretches out the heavens all alone,
Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;
“ And now the LORD says,
Who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant,
To bring Jacob back to Him,
So that Israel is gathered to Him
(For I shall be glorious in the eyes of the LORD,
And My God shall be My strength),
“ Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
What am I doing quoting the Bible and discussing our government in same post? Don’t I believe in the “Separation of Church and State”?
No. The words “Separation”, “Church”, and “State” are not found anywhere in the 1st Amendment. The first Amendment was not written to keep the Bible and Christianity out of our government. The Liberty Bell has a portion of a bible verse (“Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof Lev. XXV:X“) on it. There is a chapel in our Capitol Building with a stained glass window with a bible verse (the source of our nation’s motto: “In God We Trust”) on it. There are multiple examples of references to God, Moses, Crosses and the Bible in Our Capitol Building.
Coming back to the issue of abortion, someone asked a Yahoo question about abortion and the first amendment, and I am impressed with the winning answer.
So where does the separation between religion and government begin and end. At the polls? I thought separation of church and state was necessary in a free democracy. What happend to the right of privacy in the Bill of Rights that our country was founded upon?
and the Best Answer – Chosen by Voters:
You have a twisted view of the First Amendment – as do most Americans today. Until the mid-1900s, this amendment was understood to be exactly what it said:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF …” (caps added)
The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson’s letter from which the phrase “separation of church and state” was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:
“I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
The reason Jefferson choose the expression “separation of church and state” was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist’s own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
“When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world…”
The “wall” was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.
Our Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians. We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas.
This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible.
The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government.
An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king…” The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government.
For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated.
Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state? People have read too much into the phrase “separation of church and state”, which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?
Bottom line is this: the First Amendment was meant to protect religion from the government – NOT to protect the government from religion.
P.S. Both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barry Soetoro (Barack Hussein Obama II) supported the most hiddeous form of abortion: Partial Birth Abortion. Obama’s abortion lies.
Update: More on Obama’s position on infanticide.
Update: McCain tests our “tolerance”
“I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party,” McCain told Hayes. “And I also feel that — and I’m not trying to equivocate here — that Americans want us to work together. You know, [former Pennsylvania Governor] Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don’t think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out.”
Later he added: “I think it’s a fundamental tenet of our party to be pro-life but that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice. We just have a — albeit strong — but just it’s a disagreement. And I think Ridge is a great example of that. Far more so than [New York City Mayor Michael] Bloomberg, because Bloomberg is pro-gay rights, pro, you know, a number of other issues.”
Meanwhile, John McCain has yet to give a convention speaking spot to the Presidential Candidate who is the overwhelming preference of Values Voters. This is just one more piece of evidence that John McCain is no friend of Pro-Life conservatives.
The pro-life position is more than just “one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party”. As our founders of our Republic made absolutely clear, it is a self-evident truth that Life is an God-given unalienable right. This is not an issue on which we compromise.
Abortion is the sine qua non of the social conservative agenda, not gay rights, for a simple reason: abortion kills human life.
And people still trust McCain to appoint strict constructionist Judges and Justices?
Wake up, Neo.
…the same man who was McCain’s stalking horse in South Carolina, to ensure that McCain won that primary over the candidate (Huckabee) who supports a Human Life Amendment and committed in writing to appointing more justices like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.
Fred Thompson, who “in a McCain administration…would play a dominant role in selecting Supreme Court nominees and other judicial appointments”, is the same man who thinks that abortion is a “states rights” issue, not a “God-given unalienable rights” issue.
So Fred Thompson does not support a Human Life Amendment, and actively worked to prevent the nomination of a candidate who does. This is the man McCain has picked to “play a dominant role in selecting Supreme Court nominees”.
And people still trust McCain to appoint strict constructionist Judges and Justices?
Wake up, Neo.
So, is the answer Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?
No, absolutely not…they are much worse. As mentioned above, they both support partial birth abortion, and Obama even supports infanticide.
The answer is making sure that we nominate a true conservative at the Republican National Convention.
I just came across a speech where a former President of the United States made the same point about abortion and the Declaration of Independence…
More than a decade ago, a Supreme Court decision literally wiped off the books of fifty states statutes protecting the rights of unborn children. Abortion on demand now takes the lives of up to one and a half million unborn children a year. Human life legislation ending this tragedy will someday pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does. Unless and until it can be proven that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be protected.
You may remember that when abortion on demand began, many, and indeed, I’m sure many of you, warned that the practice would lead to a decline in respect for human life, that the philosophical premises used to justify abortion on demand would ultimately be used to justify other attacks on the sacredness of human life — infanticide or mercy killing. Tragically enough, those warnings proved all too true. Only last year a court permitted the death by starvation of a handicapped infant.
I have directed the Health and Human Services Department to make clear to every health care facility in the United States that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects all handicapped persons against discrimination based on handicaps, including infants. And we have taken the further step of requiring that each and every recipient of federal funds who provides health care services to infants must post and keep posted in a conspicuous place a notice stating that “discriminatory failure to feed and care for handicapped infants in this facility is prohibited by federal law.” It also lists a twenty-four-hour; toll-free number so that nurses and others may report violations in time to save the infant’s life.
President Ronald Reagan
Remarks at the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals
March 8, 1983