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.
The very birth of our country was spawned by this belief. This conviction led our founding fathers to risk their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in order to form a Union that would provide these rights for successive generations.
Our nation is also based upon the principles of democracy. While our government is a form of republic, it operates under the premise that the voice of every citizen carries weight.
This places upon the shoulders of government the immense and priceless burden of protecting these rights for every citizen. A government that fails to pursue the protection of these rights with the same zeal for all citizens is lacking in meeting the criteria of a true democracy.
This also provides to the citizen a yardstick by which each candidate for public office may be measured. As we evaluate the two tickets that are legitimate candidates for the presidency we should apply this yardstick to each.
Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin have both stated unequivocally that they believe that life begins at conception. Sen. McCain has a consistent record in Congress of voting pro-life and has stated his intention of appointing judges who share his view. Sarah Palin’s views on the matter are well-documented as well. Both have shouldered the responsibility of protecting the right to life of even the youngest of citizens, even those who are deemed to have special needs.
Sen. Obama has publicly confessed his ignorance on exactly when life begins. This raises questions about his ability or inclination to protect the right to life of all Americans. Sen. Biden has stated that he believes that life begins at conception but does not feel obligated to protect that life. Both of these men have a congressional record that indicates their deficient value of the life of the unborn.
Additionally, Obama’s website states his position that the most fundamental right is the right to vote. While voting is undeniably an important privilege, it is not to be mistaken as being as weighty as the right to life. Again, confusion and ignorance seems to characterize Obama’s position on the matter.
For those who read this, I would pose this question, “If we cannot trust the Democratic ticket to protect the first and most basic of all rights for our weakest citizens, how can we trust them to protect any of our rights?”
If the right to life is denied, the other rights are meaningless.
The value of life is determined by the fact that man was created in the image of God as a living soul. It is not based upon the circumstances of their conception, the abilities of their parent(s) to provide for them, the environment of their birth or their mental and physical abilities.
When presidents, judges and lawmakers start determining whose life is valuable enough to protect, we are treading on a slope that is nothing more than oil-coated glass. When we surrender the right to life to the judgment of others, we place them in the role of God and we risk forfeiting our own right at some point.
Let us elect leaders who recognize the sanctity of life so that the blessings of liberty and the pursuit of happiness may continue.
Do you do blogroll exchanging? If you want to exchange links let me know.
Email me back if you’re interested.
I totally agree!
Sometimes the constitution isn’t enough. African Americans and women needed a consititutional amendment to grant them the rights that you would think would have been guaranteed by the very words that you started your post with.
The country is divided over abortion and when life begins. You and I may agree Gordon but our country does not have a consensus on this issue. So the question for me is how do we get that consensus? How do we get a constitutional amendment passed?
And don’t tell me that we need the supreme court to legislate this one for us or “send the issue back to the states”.. we didn’t do it for the rights of African Amercican and women. We need an amendment to the constitution not another conservative justice on the high court. So, how do we get a constitutional amendment passed?
Until that question is answered I think that the plight of the unborn will be one of those issues that politicians will continue to use to manipulate sincere people like you and me with promises of conservative justices.. but only if we let them.
Of course the majority of my vote this year will be pro-life (we Kansans have pro-life senators).. still undecided about one race though.. maybe the debates will help?
Sorry to once again be the contrarian 😦
Thanks for the chance to comment!
Hi Rose, thanks for stopping by.
KB, you raise some interesting points. I think I know what you are getting at in your first paragraph, but before I answer, can you elaborate a little?
As far as a constitutional ammendment goes, that will have to come from Congress. If I am remembering my high-school civics correctly, it must be passed by both houses and then ratified by a two-thirds majority of the states. (I know you know this, I’m just repeating it for my own benefit 🙂 ) I’m sure you can see the difficulty of getting any constitutional ammendment passed in the current political climate, although if the cause is noble, it is always worth the effort.
While I disagree with Pres. Bush on several issues, I do feel he has demonstrated integrity in the Supreme Court justices he has nominated. The fact that Roe v. Wade has not been overturned has more to do with the issue not yet coming before the bench since their confirmation than it does failure on the part of the administration to face it. This only underscores the point of my article, McCain will appoint judges who will insure a pro-life majority on the bench, while Obama will do the opposite. Thus, if and when the issue does resurface in the SC, it is imperative that pro-life justices be in place.
And lest ye Kansans get to thinking of yourselves too highly, we Georgians have pro-life senators, too! 😉
I thnk you’re both right. We need both . . . and. A constitutional amendment, although difficult to accomplish, would also be longer lasting. In the meantime, conservative justices would help lay the groundwork needed to get a little momentum behind the effort, as well as preventing any expansion of abortion “rights”.
What is the question that you are wanting to answer Gordon?
Dave, welcome to Heavenly Heartburn. What you are describing is certainly the ideal way to address the abortion issue.
KB, you mentioned a constitutional amendment to protect the rights of African-Americans and women. To what rights were you specifically referring?
Amendment 13: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Amendment 15: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Amendment 19: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Hey Gordon you did it again. Your words are so true. Keep up the great work.
KB, somehow your comment wound up in my spam folder. I am sorry about that. Additionally, I just now realized that the first paragraph of your first comment was in the past tense. For some reason I thought you said that African-Americans and women “need” an amendment, but you said “needed”. It make so much more sense to me now. 😎 (I only had about two hours sleep last night so I was a little slow on the uptake today.) I understand what you are saying now.
Sorry for the confusion.
Bro. TA, as always, its good to hear from you. I’ll do my best. With friends like you to encourage me and friends like KB to keep me balanced I just might make it one day. 😉
Keep you balanced.. whoa.. not qualified.. and who’s going to keep me balanced?