www.landofthefree.url4life.com
Note: The following paper deals with the topic of abortion and was originally made by myself as a post on FreeConservatives.com. I understand that this is a hot button issue for a lot of you out there. I have brought it here as an official paper because I feel that it sums up my possition on this debate better than any of the many essays I have attempted to begin on the topic over the last year. I understand that this paper will generate some heated emails in my inbox and I am taking a hard line on this. Any threats personally targeted at myself or my family over this debate will be reported to the authorities and procecuted. I will not tollerate rude or outlandish accusations on the topic. If you wish to debate the topic with me in correspondence that is fine and I will be more than happy to respond. I however will not respond to the wild half-baked emails that some of you may wish to generate. This paper is not here to attack those of you that disagree with my stance on abortion. It is here to present my though process and why I believe what I do.
Having read and agreeing that you understand this I proudly present All Men Created Equal. Enjoy.
Originally Posted September 4, 2003:
I’ll weigh in on this for my first post aside from my introduction. I am sorry that it is rather long however abortion is a topic that while I feel is simple, many people do not and I want to elevate as many misconceptions about my opinion as possible.
I look at this case in simple terms. In fact they are the simple terms that I try and address all such issues.
There are only two times I condone killing. First is self-defense (either of yourself or of another incapable of defending one's self). Second is when it is an act of the government akin to war. All other acts of killing are considered murder and thus illegal in my opinion. I freely admit that my feelings on this topic vary from the accepted legal practice of abortion as non-murder.
We do have a political conundrum where abortion is not legally murder. Well, sometimes. And I admit that the current thought process of the political establishment does contradict my line of thought and I, as a law abiding citizen must respect that. This current establishment is based upon an argument that is flawed. However the flaw is capable of being remedied.
We are at a cross roads in the legal system where sometimes the unborn child being killed is murder (i.e. if the child was wanted by the mother) and other times the child is a lifeless mass hampering the mother's enjoyment of her life (i.e. when the child is unwanted). And this is indeed a dangerous legal cliff we are dangling over. It creates dual standards. Laws can not have such duality. Laws must be firm otherwise there is no sense in creating the law in the first place.
You can not have sometimes the child as a life and sometimes it is not. You can not murder something that is not alive. But also simply the act of "wanting" something does not meet the standard of it being alive.
I do not condone abortion except in one case as outlined below and will discus that. However because abortion is not “legally” murder I am torn between two sides. Uphold the laws of this nation or uphold God’s laws?
I have made the decision to live my life as close to God’s law as possible. And when I speak of God’s law I do not speak of simply the 10 Commandments but also the teachings of the Bible which talk about when things such as killing is indeed murder. Those that practice abortions (except in one instance) are indeed murders based upon the founding of this nation and I detest that sin as a violation of the Commandments. However I love the sinner despite my disagreement with them on this issue and do not believe that murdering the sinner as a method of reprisal is indeed correct. There are other ways to inhibit the abortion process be it through education, legally or through civil disobedience and other means.
The act of killing the abortionist is also wrong. Both are wrongs and together do not make a right.
Make no mistake. I do not hold this position out of pacifism or fear to act against the establishment of government sanctioned murder. I hold this position because I feel that winning the hearts and heads of people through reason is a better method than beating them over the head and forcing them to believe or even ultimately killing them if they do not choose to do so.
------------------------------------------
Now, I talk about that one instance where abortion is not murder in my mind and as supported by our founding. The following is my root path of that belief and provided as backup for the above belief as well as why all other forms of abortion are indeed murder and more importantly simply wrong on their face.
Background:
Our government is based upon the assumption of equal creation (source the Declaration of Independence). Thus all the core rights to Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness must be applied equally to all. The problem here is many people do not believe the child to be alive in the first place. However it does meet the biological definition of life which is “an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction”. The child meets the standard of being alive.
Next the question is is the child human? Take a DNA sample and ask it to be analyzed and the result will be that the donor was human. Having established that the unborn child is human it is then a assuredly a person despite it's appearance or inability to live without the mother.
Is an unborn child a human? Answer yes. The child indeed has the characteristics of humans in the sense that at its root its genetic code is human. Thus it meets the test of human life and being of the whole of mankind.
Having previously established the child as a person it is granted all of its inalienable rights; Life, Liberty, pursuit of happiness and equal creation inherent to all mankind. Having the same rights as all other men the rights of the mother can not interfere with the rights of the child except if a contradiction to the mother’s rights is indeed proven. At such time the following question must be raised; is there indeed a contradiction to the mother’s rights?
Now we can move on.
Does the child’s Life interfere with mother’s right to Life? This is not meant to be used as a quality of life argument. Quality of life is an arbitrary standard and no one is guaranteed a certain quality of life although you may be able to seek redress and damages later on from the party that injured you (i.e. your child) at a later date if certain criteria are met and you can prove you were harmed. The argument is simply will the child cause the mother to forfeit her God given right to Life? If so then should the mother wish to abort the child then I will accept that as self-defense. If it does not however aborting the child is wrong. All men are endowed with the same rights and no one’s rights are more equal. All things being equal the child’s right to Life and the mother’s right to Life are balanced except should the child’s life forfeit that of the mother.
Some will argue that killing the child to save the mother in itself violates this equality of Life. I assure you it does not. It is simply that if one will die then it must be the one that is violating the current existence of another and for me raises no ethical or religious concerns. While I would surely mourn the loss I can not find fault with the decision.
Does the child’s Life interfere with the mother’s right to Liberty? From Webster’s Liberty is “freedom from arbitrary or despotic control”. Having established that the child is not a threat to the mother’s Life then the child’s Life must be protected. Such a path is not arbitrary nor is it despotic. In fact it is the insurance of equal creation. Thus the Liberty of the mother is not infringed. Once that Liberty is not infringed there is no longer an argument here.
Does the child’s life interfere with the mother’s right to pursue happiness? Answer no. The mother may not in fact BE happy because of the child however that is not what “pursue happiness” means. You do not have a right to be happy. George Washington even said as much.
As this person is neither a threat to the person performing the abortion then I can not justify the act of abortion as self -defense.nor is it an act of war
Thus we have only one time were I find aborting a child is allowable under the laws of this nation and I believe it to be in accordance with God’s law. That is simply when the child’s continued life will clearly take the mother’s God given right to life.
While I certainly feel for the woman who is raped and conceives a child against her will, the child is not the one that infringed upon her rights and thus can not be punished. The rapist is the culprit where the law must be applied.