A Game: Quotes from Morality and Politics

Here is the game, I will provide two quotes, you guess of who said it or where it is contained. I’ll provide the answer and explanation.

#1 “Existing law is clearly not doing enough to protect the youngest, smallest, most vulnerable members of our society.”

ANSWER: Was that Rick Santorum or Pat Robertson again? No. Democratic Assemblywoman from California, Sally Lieber. And no, she was not discussing the latest atrocities of infanticide promoted by Barack Obama and his failure to support the Infants Born Alive Bill. Nor was she discussing the frailty and most vulnerable members of society who have not passed through the birth canal. She made those comments in support of a California bill that will prevent spanking of children under three-years-old. The bill seeks to prevent people from “willfully” inflicting “unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering” on a child. Yeah, I guess that reasoning applies to corporal punishment. Why not abortion?

#2 “The use of an implement, including, but not limited to, a stick, a rod, a switch, an electrical cord, an extension cord, a belt, a broom, or a shoe . . . [or] brandishing a deadly weapon upon a child” can be used to determine “whether or not a defendant willfully caused any child to suffer, or inflicted unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering.”

ANSWER: California Bill AB 2943 (anti-corporal punishment bill). I think this statute is missing some “implements”, perhaps the following should be included: curettes (sharp, hoe-like instruments), medical suction devices, forceps used to dismember appendages, long-curved Mayo scissors for decapitation and dismemberment, scissor penetration in the back of the skull, and administration of Methotrexate-Misprostol and Mifepristone-Misoprostol. Each of those is already being administered on a daily basis to thousands of young, unborn Americans. Why not extend the reasoning of the corporal punishment bill to abortion?

Smoking Roe

It has happened. Iowa will likely pass a law prohibiting smoking in public places. I am not a cigarette smoker and this bill will not have much effect on my dining experience. However, this legislation reminds me of the illogical connection that liberal Democrats make between the “public good” and “choice.”

Under the sacred liberal cow of “choice”, smokers could clearly argue they have a choice to smoke and do to their bodies whatever they want. Democrats throw aside the liberty interest of “choice”, and employ the “public health” rationale. “We’re doing this to protect the workers of Iowa,” State Sen. Matt McCoy said. At least Mr. McCoy and I agree on that—we should protect vulnerable individuals, and that a nexus exists between second-hand smoke and cancer. Democrats, however, refuse to carry this “public health” rationale and logic to its rightful end.

Why isn’t this logic and desire to protect innocent lives carried through to the issue of pre-born humans? Almost 100% of abortions end in death. (Barack Obama would prefer to see those unsuccessful abortions still result in death, see prior note “Barack: Candidate of Change”). The nexus between a woman's “choice” and serious health effects for a third party is a much tighter connection than inhaling second-hand smoke as you pass someone on the street or in a bar.

“I think it’s a common sense issue.” said State Senator Roger Stewart, D-Preston. Unfortunately, he was not talking about the human rights of the unborn.

Barack: Candidate of Change

I have heard the mantra of “change” for many months. Senator Barack Obama constantly invokes change as his qualification for the presidency. His supporters clamor for Barack because of change. But can Barack’s supporters define change? The supporters I talk with are caught up in the wave of emotion, and do not know what “change” actually means. I discovered why Mr. Obama is the candidate of change, and what it means to our future.

Mr. Obama seeks to change the meaning of “person” under the Constitution. Most regrettably, he seeks to narrow and limit the meaning of “person.” What do I mean by this? It is simple. Once a fetus is born, when it leaves the birth canal, when its lungs fill with air during its first breath, Barack does not support measures to keep that baby alive. He voted against a bill to classify the born human being as a “person,” which gives it the full rights of the U.S. Constitution.

The Born Alive Infants bill came up in the Illinois Senate when Mr. Obama was a state senator. The bill would have defined “person” as a baby that was fully born, even after a failed abortion attempt. Instead of leaving the baby to die in a trash heap after a failed abortion, the bill would have required medical care to keep the baby alive. What is unreasonable about that? Nothing. When the Illinois bill came to a vote, Mr. Obama voted “no”.

But didn’t that bill infringe on the so-called “choice” of a woman? A bill with identical language came up at the federal level. According to California Senator Barbara Boxer (D), a staunch supporter of abortion, the federal bill “certainly DOES NOT attack Roe in any way.” In a Congressional hearing, a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. testified about induced labor abortions and one specific instance where a child was not provided medical support. “One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived.” Barack voted against keeping that most-vulnerable child alive. That is shameful.

One thinks Mr. Obama would support such a bill, especially in light of America’s history. Mr. Obama should know the Three-Fifths Compromise only counted African-Americans as a part of a person for purposes of voting representation. Mr. Obama should know that the U.S. Supreme Court said African Americans were not persons worthy of the rights of other Caucasian citizens. Mr. Obama should know the danger of seeking to restrict who a “person” is under the Constitution. Yet, he votes to change and restrict the definition and rights of a person, the most vulnerable human beings in our society, babies.

Mr. Obama is the candidate of change. Restricting the definition and rights of humans already born is not the “change” that I want.

The Choice: Abortion or Non-Discrimination

For some time, I have known that a conundrum exists between the values of non-discrimination and the so-called liberal value of a “woman’s right to choose.” The stereotype follows that both values are dogmatic in the belief system of any true liberal. In the proper context, with the right individual, I have desired to ask the following hypothetical:

In Country X, women are performing ultrasounds on their pregnancies. After the ultrasound results come back, the women discover they are having a female baby. The woman decides that this is an undesirable trait and aborts the baby. Abortions of female babies occur nationwide in a far wider rate than with males. In fact, 90% of aborted babies are females, and the remaining 10% are males. Given the facts, which value should be upheld: non-discrimination or choice?

I assumed that this would elicit a confused response in which a social liberal would make the “difficult” choice: noticing discriminatory conduct and eliminating it at the expense of eliminating a “woman’s right to choose” or allowing the discrimination in order to uphold their increasingly unjustified idea that life begins after birth. One would hope that the value of human life and protecting the right to be born trumps other rights. In other words, I was optimistic they would notice the discrimination and eliminate abortion, realizing the inherent value of an unborn baby's life.

This musing has removed itself from the realm of a hypothetical into a real-life “difficult ethical conundrum,” according to the National Review of Medicine. Doctors in Canada advertise sex-determination ultrasounds that help a woman determine whether she wants to keep the baby.

Unfortunately, Canada has made its choice in this matter. Guess which “right” triumphs? “At the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women meeting in March, Canada helped force the withdrawal of a US-sponsored resolution against sex-selective abortion.” Canada's decision eliminates an otherwise protected class of individuals to uphold a so-called “right to choose.”

"Choice" has become the highest virtue. As a result, undeserved death increases. So does discrimination. Making that choice is baffling.