For many years, one of the main arguments for abortion was to simply punt on the question of humanity. They’d say since we can’t say when life begins we might as well keep it open season on babies until they’re born (and sometimes a little after).
Now, nobody with an honest mind can actually question when life begins. When they say they don’t know when life begins they’re intending to say they’re unsure when life is worthy of being protected. Or they say that it’s they don’t know when “life” becomes human life.
But it seems to me that Thomas Jefferson took care of all this. The opening of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, states as follows:
“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.
Created?
A thought about that. If the Declaration is one of the foundational document on which this country stands, it would seem to me this country, if it is to be based on principles rather than fads and whims of elitists in matching robes, there could not be legal abortion.
If all men are created equal that tells us that when we are created we are equal to all others and assume the same rights as others – even those fortunate enough to make it outside the womb.
It doesn’t say that when we are born we assume those rights. It says that we are created equal.
I don’t think anyone could argue that creation itself occurs anytime other than the moment of conception.
How could the pro-abortion types advance their agenda is “created” was the yardstick by which we judged humanity? Could they possibly argue that creation happens at a moment other than conception.
Scientifically, it is without question that conception involves creation of a human. One couldn’t possibly argue that creation occurs later. I’ve heard pro-abort types argue that it becomes human later or if talking religion they argue when the moment of ensoulment occurs. But there’s no way to argue logically that creation takes place at any moment other than conception.
Now, I understand that the Declaration is not the Constitution but I would argue that it embodies the truth on which our system stands. And in this day and age when justices say they can pick and choose their way through other countries’ documents to find substantiation for their own laws, the Declaration would at least seem to hit closer to home. And the Declaration itself and those words have been used in Supreme Court decisions including the infamous Amistad case.
I know that pro-abortion types and their grisly cadre of followers will simply pretend not to understand the distinction of when creation occurs. They’ll say it’s above their pay grade or something. In fact, the Supreme Court has ignored these great words before. In 1857, the Supreme Court ignored the words of our founding fathers with their ruling in Dred Scott v. Sanford that stated that slaves could be treated as property of the slaveholder. Part of America’s story is that a terrible price has been paid by America when she failed to live up to those words.
America has always struggled with the ideals laid forth in the Declaration. That struggle started with Jefferson himself and exhibits itself in every generation. We struggle with those words and we seek to live up to them. Jefferson, who penned those famous words, owned slaves.
But those words didn’t die with Jefferson. Almost a century later, Abraham Lincoln used Jefferson’s words in his efforts to end slavery. Lincoln sought to raise America and push it to live up to those words.
And a century after that, Martin Luther King Jr. invoked those same words in calling the nation to fulfill its promise to make all men equal.
And now, we too look to Jefferson’s words. We seek to make his words written almost 250 years ago more true than they have ever been before. We call out to America to live up to its promise. We invoke Jefferson’s words and we call on America to simply become better than she is today.
August 25, 2009 at 9:06 am
Amen! We ARE CREATED at conception.
"It doesn't say that when we are born we assume those rights. It says that we are created equal.
"I don't think anyone could argue that creation itself occurs anytime other than the moment of conception."
This understanding must reach those deaf ears out there. Roe v. Wade must be overturned.
August 25, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Assumptions about the past fail. Abortion was legal and common prior to quickening in the British colonies and in the US until the mid 19th century.
Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions. They used a variety of methods including the use of black root and cedar root as abortifacient agents. During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states.
August 25, 2009 at 3:19 pm
File that last comment under Newsflash: People have done bad things for a long long time! SO therefore all bad things should be legal.
August 25, 2009 at 3:52 pm
PersonalFailure, where did you get your information quoted above?
I am reading Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History (“Myths”) by Joseph Dellapenna. In it, Mr. Dellapenna uses primary sources to dispel the following myths:
(1) that abortion was always a common practice in human history; (2) that voluntary early abortions were not crimes until the nineteenth century; (3) that the nineteenth-century abortion statutes were designed to protect the life of the mother rather the life of the child; and (4) that the statutes were enacted through a conspiracy of men to accomplish several nefarious purposes—to subordinate women, to eliminate competition from women health-care workers with male physicians, and to ensure adequate birth rates among white, Protestant women to prevent “race suicide.”
This book contradicts your source's findings above.
I used a variation of Mr. Archbold's argument when I spoke at my State hearing for Personhood MD.
The "original sin" of our Republic needs to be further healed with the protection of preborn people (of the human family; see below).
Also, how about the (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights Perspective?
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world…"
August 25, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Apparently Dellapenna's book is the authoritative work on the history of abortion law and shows that the historical assumptions of the Roe court were entirely false. Of course, that wont prevent the repetition of a useful lie.
Gutterball, I was thinking of purchasing that book, it is a good read?
August 25, 2009 at 6:19 pm
I believe that it was not a slip of the tongue when Obama in his Inaugural address said that "we are all equal…."
In his world view there is no "created" —- if there was he would have to subject himself to it. And he won't. That's why he can comfortable claim that knowing when an unborn person should enjoy human rights is above his pay grade. He won't submit.
Doesn't that sound familiar?
There was once the most beautiful and radiant person God created. His name was Light bringer, or Lucifer,…… (do I have to go on?) – we all know where he ended up.
Mercy!
Mum26
August 25, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Umm…. where in the world did Anonymous get that information? Abortion WAS rare in the West (don't know about Indians). If they weren't actually illegal that's because it was considered so barbaric (not "socially unacceptable") that it didn't need to be made illegal. Ever hear of the Hippocratic Oath? Doctors taking it have vowed not to perform abortions or to otherwise kill people since ancient Greek times. It is not NEW — what is new is the blase attitude that abortion is "no big deal." Plants & concoctions that produced abortions were certainly known throughout European and early American history, but they were also extremely risky to the mother's life.
August 25, 2009 at 7:32 pm
And yet the constitution acknowledges citizenship to those who are born in the US or naturalized into it.
"Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I mean for this to be a response neither pro- or anti-abortion. Instead, I mean it to be a response to using the Declaration of Independence to make your argument.
August 25, 2009 at 9:33 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
August 25, 2009 at 9:35 pm
"And yet the constitution acknowledges citizenship to those who are born in the US or naturalized into it."
What a nation considers itself as having the power to distinguish (citizenship at birth), and what it already acknowledges as having been distinguished (right to life under divine and/or natural law) are two different things. Remember, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are two separate documents, written more than a decade apart.
August 25, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Even without all Roe's flaws, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade (1973) said, “If the suggestion of personhood [of the [pre]born] is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth Amendment].” (from **here**)
So, according to the Constitution, if the personhood of preborn humans is established, they are protected by the "real" law-dictating document of this Republic. As of now, the personhood of the preborn is not established, but it also took a long time for the personhood of humans with black skin to be considered persons. (Please see maafa21 and here.)
August 25, 2009 at 10:33 pm
David (August 25, 2009 12:28 PM), the book is good so far; it presents the facts (almost exhaustive as I can tell) and even talks about the problem of truth suppression in the abortion debate. It's long, but its worth the read (so far; I'm not finished).
It's cheapest on Amazon (I shopped a while ago). Also, you can get 34% off if you go off this page (as I see it on the side below the "followers").
I like it so much, I think that a bunch of people should send copies to the US Supr. Court (tell Just. Alito (and Robert? or Thomas?) that the Founders did have precedent for personhood of unborn at the dawn of the Republic in English (and colonial/state?) laws).
August 26, 2009 at 6:31 am
I blogged about this a little while ago. (http://scarlett-franklymydear.blogspot.com/2009/02/we-hold-these-truths-to-be-self-evident.html) The Declaration of Independence, unfortunately, does not have the force of law, as far as I'm aware.
And as for Anonymous (2:32) – it's entirely true that citizenship is conferred at birth (or naturalization). Lots of people aren't citizens. That doesn't make them fair game! Since when is it moral or legal to kill a non-citizen person? Illegal alien, resident alien, tourist – it doesn't matter whether they're citizens, they still can't be killed! It says so in the article you quoted: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
August 26, 2009 at 8:44 am
@Mum26/anonymous
So Obama is now the devil? Or maybe a servant of the devil?
Come on! I'm pro-life but these types of staements do not help.
August 26, 2009 at 8:28 pm
I think Mum26 was referring to the central source of all the lies being promulgated about abortion. The Father of Lies is well, the father of these lies too- he's convinced the pro-aborts that his lies are true. And that the Father of Lies has been willingly listened to and cooperated with by our current president- whether the president sees it that way or not.
You're right though, theological debate on the source of this great evil is pretty moot. People on that side of the debate like to deny God's existance or to mold Him into something He truly is not. This makes it tough to discuss the matter with the pro-aborts on the same level. We're looking at this as a moral/spiritual issue of great importance, they view it as an issue of convenience and the subjective feelings of the women and men involved. The only way we'll really end this debate is to convert their hearts toward God so the scales can be lifted from their eyes.
IMHO, as long as this issue is debated in an arena where the existance of our Creator is denied or ignored for the sake of sounding "rational," we will continue to have people ignoring the obvious truth about humanity through their own twisted logic. (As evidenced by Personal Failure's post- it's been done for ever, therefore it's ok?? By that logic those of Aztec descent would still be performing human sacrifice!)