« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

On This Day

By: The Directors (Diary)  |  January 23rd, 2012 at 05:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

At RedState, we recognize that abortion is not likely to be the foremost issue in this year’s federal elections. We know that at a time when the economy continues to spiral out of control, massive numbers of people remain unemployed or underemployed, and Obama’s reckless spending threatens our fiscal health, it is difficult to force people to focus on a problem that remains largely unseen, and does not ultimately impact the ability of families to put food on their table. Yet it remains appropriate to take a moment to grieve the lost and to reaffirm our commitment to the basic principles to which we are committed.

The first and foremost responsibility of any legitimate government, no matter its form, is to prevent where possible the taking of innocent life. The second responsibility of any government is to punish the taking of innocent life when the government has failed at its first responsibility. Thirty-nine years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States broke with centuries of precedent and the plain text of the Constitution and declared that the Government of the United States was constitutionally prevented from carrying out these responsibilities when the innocent life in question was contained within a woman’s womb. Since that time, the gears of death and slaughter have marched inexorably onward, and the blood of tens of millions has been spilled on our soil with nary a second thought by the vast majority of our populace.

Were this a tragedy of any other sort, we might pause here to list the names – or at least a portion of the names – of the fallen. Yet here we cannot, because the fallen have been denied the dignity of a name, or of a life that anyone might remember and lament, or of a proper burial. This is a perfect encapsulation of the evil Roe has wrought, that we all instinctively mourn the most the young who die without the chance to live a proper and full life – except in the case of children who are unwanted by their parents, who we have somehow been conditioned to not mourn at all. This injustice cannot and will not be sustained forever, and we renew our commitment this year and every year to do everything within our power within the lawful political process to see Roe overturned. We do not now and will not ever support any candidate who pledges fealty to this judicial usurpation and the machinery of death it enables.

On this day, we remember.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Chango

    The economy is “spiraling out of control”? I don’t think that unnecessary and inaccurate hyperbole helps the rest of your argument.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      If you’re going to come here to shill for the President, don’t push your luck, buddy.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    And that would be fifty million pairs.

    50,000,000. The entire population of California and Illinois.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    We may not always agree on every issue, endorsement, etc. (although on most we do), but your unwaivering, unapologetic, unabashed defense of the unborn is a clear demonstration of your principles, and I am thankful for it.

    • jakeofalltrades

      This industrial murder must be stopped. If we won’t do it ourselves, I truly believe we will be made to do it by One who does not answer to the Supreme Court. And His chosen tool throughout history is subjugation to foreigners more righteous than us.

      Mene mene tekel uparsin.

      • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

        Take a gander again at Habakkuk

        • jakeofalltrades
  • courdeleon02

    Newt knows how to harness the intense anger that most of us have for the Obama administration. In our zeal to see someone wipe the floor with Obama we have lost our minds. Newt says he will debate the President 7 times 3 hours at a clip.That is utterly ridiculous. Obama may even refuse to debate him since that is Newt’s greatest weapon. Obama will fill the airwaves with negative ads highlighting Newt’s excess baggage. Newt won’t know what hit him when it is all over. Unfortunately the base seems to be rallying around the most flawed candidate in the field. The campaign will not be about jobs or the economy it will end up being about the character of Newt which we all know is highly questionable. Just ask his fellow House members who through him out.If this Newt mania continues we can expect to be destroyed by a landslide such as 1964 when Goldwater led us off the cliff.

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      having absolutely nothing to do with subject at hand. And not an open thread.

      You should offer a sincere apology. The quicker the better.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Pull this stuff again and you’re gone.

  • benko

    And personally there are not too many articulate fighers in the party, so some of us like him.

    Please post rebuttal in any of the other threads more appropriate.

  • benko

    And personally there are not too many articulate fighers in the party, so some of us like him.

    Please post rebuttal in any of the other threads more appropriate.

  • d_lamar

    It’s too bad nobody asked him why he continues to fund Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars.

    • maybenexttime

      Boehner is far from being the only Republican who hedges on the abortion issue. I think many in the GOP want to see abortion dealt with in a manner similar to the way Al Sharpton handles racism. Do you really think Sharpton wants to see racism end in America?

      Just like racial issues keep Sharpton in business, legalized abortion helps fuel a big cash cow and vote magnet for GOP political candidates. If they lose it as a political issue (i.e. Roe Vs. Wade is overturned) then a significant chunk of the electorate may begin ignoring politics altogether. That makes their job of getting re-elected much tougher.

      Politicians don’t have big careers if they solve problems once and for all. They’re like auto mechanics, who depend on stuff always breaking down in order to justify their existence. Fixing the abortion problem is not in their own self-interests.

      • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

        There were hecklers in the background shouting something about Planned Parenthood. I don’t know how close they were to the podium, but it sounded pretty raucous. (FWIW, it also sounded like Boehner had taken a long lunch if you know what I mean).

  • bcochran1981

    Amen.

  • tcgeol

    for this moving reminder.

    However, it isn’t enough to overturn Roe – we have to overturn PP vs Casey as well, since that decision upholds abortion as we know it now. Roe would be an excellent start, though.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    I read a great blog post yesterday from Dr. Michael Bauman, professor of Religion and Culture at Hillsdale College. In it, he says,

    ” To protect unborn children in any legal way in America has become increasingly difficult. If only the unborn were baby seals, I could lay my body down over them to protect them from the hunter’s club. But the Supreme Court will not permit me even to enter the abortuary, where I might strap myself to the operating table. Indeed, if I want to help protect the lives of unborn children in mortal danger, I am not even permitted to voice my views within twelve yards of the abortuary. If I do, I go to jail ? I go — but not the doctor who snuffs out the child’s life; and not the mother who pays him a handsome fee to do so.

    If she cannot pay, I must. Every day my taxes help fund abortions and medical experimentation on the dead bodies of the children who are its victims, much as all Germans were forced to pay for the extermination of their Jewish neighbors and for the ghoulish experimentation performed on them. If I refuse to pay, I go to jail. But not the modern Dr. Mengeles who perform these horrible deeds for a living. They go home to quiet neighborhoods and to plush homes that I helped to purchase.

    How did we let this happen?

    Bauman concludes with this encouragement to soldier on:

    ” I’ve thought a lot about ten Boom, Wallenberg and Bonhoeffer. I’ve decided to fight their fight, but with different means — the only legal mean snow available to me. I’m going to use words, weapons mightier than swords.
    Already I know of four foregone abortions, four lives that would have been four deaths had I not written or spoke. When I argue against abortion, I have this great advantage: I am right and abortion is wrong. The argument against abortion is supremely winnable. But I win it only when I persuade a mother against it. When I do, a life is saved, no matter what the law allows. Laws are often wrong, dead wrong. After all, both Nazism and slavery were legal.
    Now I’m working on number five.
    Because everyone is different, I do not know what talents and assets you have in the fight against abortion. But I do know that you ought to use whatever moral means are available to help stop the fetal holocaust.”

  • vfrmarine

    There is little question that Roe created a right that does not exist in the Constitution. Thus, the decision has always been on shaky legal ground. For the cynics among us, the issue has never truly been resolved because of the voting industry it creates. Now for the controversial points, and please, be constructive as I am genuinely trying to understand the arguments for what happens if Roe is ever overturned.

    1) Abortion existed before Roe; however, it was relegated to unsupervised and non-clinical settings. Most of us are aware of the horror stories of hangers and back-alley procedures. Like most things that are banned or criminalized (Prohibition, drugs, stock fraud), humans tend to find a way to accomplish the thing they want to do, whether legal or not.

    2) The question of rape or incest is always used as a possible exception to any ban. These are crimes that are unfortunately bound to happen again. Assuming that all rape/incest victims are willing to bring the baby to term, do we as a society have the capability of bringing all of these children into society when we still have trouble finding homes for the thousands of adoptable children who are already here? Assuming the victim has no interest in bringing the produce of such an event to term, she will likely revert to the situation addressed in #1.

    3) Another exception that is frequently mentioned is to permit abortion when the mother’s health is at risk. It would seem to be contradictory to focus on ensuring the fetus is born at the expense of the mother who carried the baby. What should be done in this situation?

    4) At what point does “life” begin? While this can certainly be phrased as a philosophical issue, the hard truth is that a fetus cannot survive outside the womb until well into the pregnancy. Staying in context of the possible exceptions outlined above, would an abortion in the first term be improper because there is debate about when “life” starts?

    5) In Freakonomics, the authors attributed the decline in the crime rate in the 1990s to the effect of less unwanted children who were aborted once Roe was decided. Are we as a society ready to see a potential increase in the crime rate if abortions became completely illegal?

    I fully understand that there will be at least a few readers who will attempt to label me something probably not eligible for publication. To answer those folks, I live in FL and have voted Republican (Rubio all the way) and supported Republican candidates across the country. Admittedly, I’m terrible at picking Presidential candidates as I was firmly in Perry’s camp. Nevertheless, I would genuinely like to receive some answers because this is an issue that I generally part with the base on because I have never received quality answers to these questions.

    Thanks for reading.

    • runner12

      Some of them I do not have the so-called right answer for, but I can share my thoughts.

      1). This is true, but we do not legalize things based on that argument. If abortion is murder, in other words, if that is what you believe then this argument is DOA. That is unless you plan to legalize murder.

      2.) The incidence of abortion as a result of rape an incest is miniscule. Nonetheless, it is is a terrible situation for anyone to be in. However, logically speaking, if one believes abortion is murder then two wrongs do not necessarily make a right. As to having trouble finding homes for children, that is not reality. If it were, couples would not wait years to adopt. It is the bureaucrats who keep these poor children in the system, boomeranging them back and forth to their biological parents.

      3). Very rarely are clinical abortions performed to save the life of the mother. This is another straw-man argument for the pro-choice crowd. The majority of the time in these cases a woman is forced to choose a course of treatment that may result in harm to the baby or cause an untintentional abortion. Since life is at stake either way, this I think would be a case in which the mother and family should have the choice to make that decision.

      4). With regards to this argument, medically and developmentally this does not hold water. A baby at 27 weeks is not likely to survive outside the womb. Yet no one would support aborting a baby at this stage. Additionally, there are a lot of things within our bodies that cannot survive outside of us. Yet no one argues that our organs are not comprised of living and active tissue with sources of energy all unto themselves.

      5). This argument to me is the most disturbing, not because you asked it, but based on history. Do you know who Margaret Sanger is? She founded Planned Parenthood. She was also an avowed Nazi sympathizer and believer in eugenics. She saw abortion as way to “get rid” of minority children and other non-Aerians. The Freakonmics argument is using some of her arguments to bolster their own. They are also insuating that if more African-American babies are born, the crime rate will go up. This is because African-American babies are more likely to be aborted than white babies. Sanger has post-humously reached her goal, to the shame of this country.

      This is a lot to digest, I know. But I think the question you must start with is “Do you believe abortion is murder”? Also, do some medical research. Read arguments from pro-life physicians and learn about the various stages of development as a child grows inside the womb.

      Then maybe you will understand why so many Conservatives are pro-life and why we mourn the anniversary of Roe and its consequences.

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      A lot of folks at one time or another may struggle with the questions you’ve asked. There have been many diaries written here at redstate about abortion, several by heartlander, and a series just posted in the last couple of weeks by lineholder. Some address your questions. Others maybe not specifically your questions, but are worth reading as representative of active pro lifers. I do warn you though, that a couple are not for the faint of heart. Abortion is ugly in every way,

      The Abortion Onion Layer. 5 part series. This is the first part which links to the second and so on.

      Gosnell

      Silent No More

      Obama Disconnected

      Pesky Pro Lifers

      The Womb – Dangerous Place for African American

      Heartbeat Bill

      Abortion at 7 months

      I hope and pray you find the answers your looking for.

    • aesthete

      BTW, it is just monstrous to frame the abortion debate as one of increased crime or terminating pregnancies. Even if true, potential crime by no means justifies : this isn’t a game where people are your pawns; it’s real life, where life and the presumption of innocence count for something. I imagine that those people making this argument would be appalled (or pretend to be appalled) with a national policy which kills a random number of inner-city black children who have a 1.0 GPA in high school; how they manage to suggest something just as deplorable in the case of aborted children is beyond my understanding of evil.

      As far as quality of life goes, I’ve found that people, even those living in sh*t and squalor, generally look unkindly at attempts to terminate their existences. Don’t make it sound like aborted fetuses are being done a favor by their mothers or society at large: that’s a complete fiction that would be scoffed at or viewed as the workings of a broken mind, if they were applied to any context other than fetuses. I’m not inclined to entertain your fantasy when lives are at stake.

      When life begins is quite clear, from a scientific standpoint: from a biological point of view, it is accurate to say that it begins at conception. The human brain develops in the fetal stage; this is also a valid starting point for the human essence, as brain functions are used to determine death. What is not acceptable — it’s quite scientifically ignorant, really — is to suggest that life begins when the fetus comes out of his or her mother’s vagina. Those who support the status quo tend to care less about this philosophical argument than they do about American Idol, or, say, the potential for killing babies out of convenience.

      Finally, as regards rape/incest/health of the mother, you have to be kidding me. I’m not going to waste my time talking about this when you know good and well that most pro-lifers accept those exceptions, mostly as accommodations to folks like you (who apparently think that eugenicist concerns [aborting products of incest] trump rights).

      We can and will have to deal with these political and moral issues upon repeal of Roe v Wade. Frankly, the attitude that lets those corner cases and enforcement issues dissuade them from stopping mass infanticide is appalling. All of those issues should certainly inform the crafting of anti-abortion bills, but they should not be impediments to attempting same.

  • bardamu

    The Supreme Court, obviously, has held that abortion is a constitutional right. If you will never support a candidate who acknowledges the right to abortion, then you will never, by definition, support a candidate who can honestly swear to uphold the Constitution. I completely respect your disagreement with Roe, but it’s the law, and a president can’t just swear to uphold the laws he likes.

    There are lots of Supreme Court cases I disagree with too, but isn’t part of out social contract the obligation to recognize the authority of our constitutional branches?

    • hal2715

      Thank you for your sane reply. We weaken our standing as constitutional conservatives when we choose to turn a blind eye to this issue.

  • bk

    David Duke emerges from whatever hole he’s in and announces that he will try to keep Margaret Sanger’s dream alive by opening as many inner-city abortion clinics as possible in order to wipe out as many minority babies – oops I mean fetuses – as possible.

    The left could not protest right? After all, aren’t we are always being told that evil conservatives are cynically trying to deny “health services” to the poorest people who need it the most?

  • Pingback: hier