Abortion: A Person Can Live Without It

The most basic understanding, when it comes to civil rights, revolves around the necessary and equal treatment of individuals, regardless of sex, race, or religion. When do these rights begin and who has the right to decide who receives them?

During a 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College, Mrs. Clinton was asked the following question: Do you believe, personally, that life begins at conception? Her response was the following:

I believe that the potential for life begins at conception. I am a Methodist, as you know. My church has struggled with this issue. In fact, you can look at the Methodist Book of Discipline and see the contradiction and the challenge of trying to sort that very profound question out.

But for me, it is also not only about a potential life; it is about the other lives involved. And, therefore, I have concluded, after great concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation, that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society. And as some of you’ve heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare.

This is quite a convoluted response to a simple question. I respect the right of Mrs. Clinton, and anyone else for that matter, to hold their contrary views when it comes to the dignity and sanctity of human life (although I will never accept them). Her views lack logic and are riddled with inconsistencies. (One can make the same arguments about Mr. Trump. We do not genuinely know where the target will stop for him when it comes to abortion, but at least it is still moving. Mrs. Clinton’s, on the other hand, is locked in position with the unborn in its crosshairs.)

I admire the fact that Mrs. Clinton has spent time contemplating this issue and has even reflected, through careful examination, her church’s view on abortion. This demonstrates a willingness to learn and act in accordance with one’s faith. Although the Methodist church does permit abortion in rare instances, there is a reluctance to advocate for its widespread practice. (This seems to be more in line with the main-stream pro-choice crowd than the extreme abortion juggernauts.)

An Opinion Is Only As Good As Its Evidence

Mrs. Clinton’s extreme views on abortion not only run contrary to her faith, they also run contrary to scientific fact. This has been highlighted in numerous articles, including one where she denied that the unborn child can actually experience pain:

Substantial medical and scientific evidence shows unborn babies are capable of feeling pain by 20 weeks after fertilization, if not earlier. It is well-documented [at Doctors on Fetal Pain]. This developmental milestone forms the basis for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Yet Clinton chooses to ignore these facts of human biology, claiming the bill is “not based on sound science,” per a statement by her campaign.

Mrs. Clinton looks for facts that justify her personal views, while disregarding, even criticizing, incontrovertible ones backed by scientific evidence. Furthermore, she counts on a compliant media to refuse calling her to task on it. Mr. Trump is never granted this courtesy. Regardless, the GOP will hold him accountable if he wins the White House, and he knows it.

Truth Always Finds A Way

The facts speak for themselves when it comes to life – what it is and when it truly begins. Mrs. Clinton has made a living, as a politician, of white-washing (even denying) the facts regarding abortion and its devastating effects. She has made a mockery of the gift of pregnancy and motherhood through her relationship with Planned Parenthood (PP). And, she has participated in the deceptive tactic of presenting herself as a champion of women’s reproductive rights, when in reality, she is an advocate for counter-reproductive rights.

Those who hold contrary views to this fundamental and inalienable right to life will try to find ways to circumvent the truth at every opportunity afforded them, but to no avail. Mrs. Clinton’s intention to repeal the Hyde Amendment is a blatant (and ludicrous) example as this, and will assuredly further abortion’s grip on our nation’s most vulnerable by mandating that tax dollars go towards providing them. Of course the pro-life community cringes at this idea, but many Democrats do not favor it, as well. After all, her own running mate only recently changed his views concerning it.

If you are not convinced that she will push for more abortions, just research her current responses regarding abortion, and ask yourself, “Why has the word, ‘rare,’ been removed from her remarks?” This has always been the quintessential response of Democrats when it comes to the issue of abortion (just as it was for her in 2008).

Rationalization Does Not Equal Rational Thought

Mrs. Clinton calls the unborn, “persons.” Persons are not potential lives. In reality, they are lives with potential, same as all of us. Yet for some reason, these persons are apparently not good enough to deserve constitutional rights (and they never will under her). To justify abortion while affirming the unborn as persons is beyond insulting.

Have not Democrats worked overtime to ensure that many diverse groups within our country get the same equal rights, even permitting legislation from the bench in the process? So why is it that the unborn are intentionally overlooked? This ranks up there with some of the worst forms of injustice a society has ever witnessed. This is a new level of spitefulness, and it is sinister.

For decades now, politicians (mainly Democrats) have relentlessly paved the way for war on the unborn, shattering women’s and children’s lives, in order to keep abortion “safe, legal, and rare.” Now, we run the risk of plunging ever deeper into the abyss, plagued by a future where one of these three will never be mentioned again.

Presidents want to be advocates for rights. Life is a right. St. John Paul II once said, “A nation that kills its own children is a nation without hope.” The fact that we are in this presidential campaign proves this to be true. A large percentage of voters feel a great sense of hopelessness, caught in irons amidst the swirling political winds. We must not let our hearts be troubled (John 14:1).

We Are Still One Nation, Under God

Our “Pledge of Allegiance” ends with the following words, “One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” We do not say, “One nation, under whomever, with liberty and justice for only those one sees fit to bestow them upon.”

That fact is abortion is the most important civil rights issue of our day – because without life, nothing else matters. Not the economy. Not job creation. Not global warming nor energy independence. Tackling this issue is no small task, but it is essential to improving our communities, our country, and our world, in order to bring back hope. Not the frivolous kind, often exhibited in front of a camera or from behind a teleprompter, but the kind that is present even when no one is watching. This cannot be a one-person job. This will only occur through a large scale offensive where multiple individuals who value life hold themselves to that standard, and motivate others to do the same.

Abortion tears at the heart of what makes us who we are; children of God, created in His image and likeness, and equal in dignity. It is a sad day when those who desire to hold positions of authority in our nation withhold justice from its most precious and innocent members, even after they have been called, “persons.” These persons deserve better. They deserve life. Who will ensure they get what they deserve?