The Declaration of Independence, the foundational document of the freest nation this world has ever known, boldly states, “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 right to life, to live free of physical harm caused by others, is what the founders understood be a natural right. It isn’t a privilege granted by a benevolent state; it is an eternal guarantee by Creator God.
Because the unjust taking of life is a slight of God’s divine laws, a government has a moral duty to protect all forms of innocent human life. Any government that refuses that duty is illegitimate. Yet in the last three decades, 50 million innocent American lives have been snuffed out without a finger lifted by the US government in response. The mass infanticide that has occurred in the U.S. through legal abortions is a mockery of our founding principles, but the Democratic Party plans to enshrine the practice in our fast approaching healthcare reform legislation.
There is an international consensus that man is entitled to human rights. In the United Nations, 48 countries voted in favor of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a resolution that claims, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” The notion of human rights is based on the assertion that humans have rights by nature of the fact that they are human, yet what makes humans any different from animals or inanimate objects? After all, are we not just one step farther along the evolutionary chain? The logical answer to these questions is that humanity is unique and its life precious only by nature of the fact that we are made in the image of God and granted eternal souls. For that reason, at whatever point human life begins, that life has an individual soul. To unjustly end that life is to commit murder.
The left claims to be “pro-choice” in that it respects the right of women to choose to do what they wish with their own body, but within their body is a life that is pure and undeserving of any punishment. Neither the regret of making the irresponsible choice of unprotected sex, nor the claim that the child will live an impoverished life can overcome the fact that every human, from the unborn to the aged, is endowed by their Creator with a right to live. The Democratic Party, however, remains unfazed by this. Nancy Pelosi’s healthcare bill nearly passed with a mandated premium that would force taxpayers to subsidize abortions, leading some to believe that federally funded abortions will be present in the final version of healthcare reform. Our government has been complacent in the murder of millions of individuals, but the use of taxpayer money to promote it is unconscionable. All Americans who value natural, human rights must unite to end this immoral practice, lest it become a permanent, institutionalized entitlement.
Neither declaration is a legal documentYou should demand your money back from whoever taught you basic civics. Both documents you cite are only declarations and carry NO legal weight. Our government can’t be held to the DOI so calling it illegitimate only shows how uninformed you are about the declaration’s lack of legal consequence. Likewise the UDHR is not a treaty so it has no legal ramifications, only moral pressures. Both declarations are nothing more than statements, something consensually agreed to as "we like these ideas, but they aren’t laws." Of course the aforementioned are common tactics of the anti-choice… Read more »
God?
What’s your God got to do with government?
Right to Privacy Clause
"Of course the aforementioned are common tactics of the anti-choice movement, to use powerfully sounding non-legal arguments because judicial precedent for abortion is steeply rooted in a Constitutional right to privacy (you know, that actual legal document governing the land) in determining medical procedures."
Interesting. I know of no right to privacy clause in the Constitution. I admit, I looked and couldn’t find it. Is that right next to the right to healthcare clause?
manipulative choice of words makes all the difference
Dear Steven Begakis,
I see that you are "staunchly anti-infanticide."
Good for you. So please refrain from killing infants (commonly defined as after birth to 1 year old), which will get you in trouble with the law anyway (and rightfully so), and leave abortion out of your rant.
I never wrote a right ro privacy "clause"
Re-read what I wrote genius: "judicial precedent for abortion is steeply rooted in a Constitutional right to privacy"
The precedence for pro-choice birth controls measures in Griswold v. Connecticut, Doe v. Bolton, Roe v. Wade were all issues of a right to privacy (verbatim use in SCOTUS opinions delivered) stemming from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Shorter Steven Begakis:
Your right to choose is getting in the way of my Christian Theocracy! Kneel before Jesus and feel his warm love all over you! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Sky cake!
The foundation of your argument is God.
When you can unequivocally prove using formal logic that God exists, I will reconsider your argument.