Onward, anti-Christian Soldiers
Vol: 28 Issue: 23 Friday, January 23, 2004
Democrats seeking support from primary voters in their race for the White House celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling 31 years ago permitting women the legal right to have an abortion. To a man, every single Democratic candidate for the White House is in favor of legal abortions.
“On the same day that we are honoring the 31st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are also fighting to save it,” Senator John Edwards of North Carolina said on Thursday. “You and I know that since the Supreme Court handed down this landmark decision, forces have been hard at work trying to overturn it.”
‘Forces’ – sounds somewhat malevolent, doesn’t it? Edwards identified those “forces” saying, “The president and the Republican leadership have one goal in mind — to over turn Roe v Wade — and we have a million reasons and ways to stop them, and we will start by taking back the White House in 2004.”
“Never in my years in public service have the rights of women been at such risk — never have women been assaulted in their citizenship here at home or womanhood around the globe as they are by this administration,” said Senator John Kerry.
Kerry promised that if elected he would only appoint pro-choice justices to the Supreme Court. “Some may call this a litmus test — but I call it a test of our will to uphold a Constitutional right that protects women’s right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God.”
Nice touch, tossing God in there. Makes it almost sound legitimate. Sort of like the phrase ‘pro-choice’. General Wesley Clark, who last week said that ‘life begins with the mother’s choice , said yesterday, “I am pro-choice. I stand with the United States Constitution, the United States Supreme Court, and the majority of the American people in believing that our government has no right to come between a woman, her family, and her doctor in making such a personal and private decision.”
Facts certainly don’t hinder General Clark. He stands with the United States Constitution, he says, while ignoring the clear and unambiguous position laid out by Thomas Jefferson in America’s foundational document, the Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Clark says he stands with the ‘majority of the American people’ — another lie that sounds good, but only if one ignores reality. The polls are consistently showing that Americans are becoming more pro-life. A poll conducted by Zogby International reported that by a 53-percent-to-36-percent margin, the public supports the statement, “Abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter.” A recent Gallup poll found that 72 percent of young people between ages 13 and 17 believe abortion is morally wrong.
President Bush telephoned in a message of support to the pro-life rally in Washington. In his message, he echoed the preamble to Declaration of Independence. “The right to life does not come from government; it comes from the creator of life.”
That’s not the way the Democrats see it. Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said abortion rights were at risk because of Bush’s decisions, “from stacking the federal judiciary with anti-choice proponents, to executive orders, to regulations, to restrictive legislation and key political appointments.”
Neither do the lobbyists who make money off the deaths of the unborn. Note the semantics here. “Anti-choice zealots want to impose their views and theology on the rest of us, and that’s just not right,” said Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
“Anti-choice zealots”? That’s just another way of saying people who believe in the sanctity of life. Semantics is everything when you re trying to defend something as reprehensible as abortion. Calling abortion what it really is would expose her for what she is.
In a sense, I agree with some of the candidates’ statements. I agree that life begins with the mother’s choice. It is a moral choice. She can choose to do the deed that makes babies, or she can choose to refrain until marriage.
Once the parents have created the baby, however, the choice has ALREADY been made. Abortion is not a ‘choice,’ it is an ‘unchoice’. All Roe v. Wade does is give a woman the right to shift responsibility for her choice from herself to the product of that choice — her unborn child.
What is euphemistically called ‘reproductive choice’ takes the sacred act of marriage and demeans it, turning it from an expression of love into little more than animal coupling.
Morality is not high on the agenda among those who want to lead America for the next four years. All the candidates in New Hampshire made it clear that they favor abortion on demand, despite couching it in glowing terms like a ‘woman’s right to choose’.
This is a semantic construct used exclusively to mask the immorality of what the woman is choosing to do.
All the candidates endorse homosexual conduct as a life-style ‘choice’. I agree that it is a ‘choice’, but that doesn’t mean it rises to the level of marriage. Neither does the majority of the American public.
But it is totally in keeping with the morals of core Democratic values, those values being reflected by the candidates seeking to woo Democratic votes during the primaries.
John Kerry used the ‘F’ word in a recent Rolling Stones interview. It was not just ignored by the Democrats. It was roundly defended by the Democrats who saw nothing wrong with it.
Howard Dean attended a campaign fundraiser sponsored by ‘moveon.org’ that featured a series of entertainers described by the New York Post as a group of ‘pro-Dean comics competing to see how often they could use the F-word in a single sentence.’
The New York Times reported that Wesley Clark received a letter of endorsement from Madonna. (It should be noted that Madonna has left the United States in disgust, preferring the more liberal environs of jolly old England)
Writes columnist Dennis Prager, “To the average liberal Democrat in America, none of these actions is worthy of note, let alone of censure. To the liberal Democrat, public cursing (or, in the case of Madonna, publishing a book of oneself in pornographic poses or open-mouthed kissing another woman on national television) is of no consequence. Indeed, they consider a person who does care about such things to be an uptight individual who wants to inflict his uptightedness on everyone else — the liberals’ very definition of a conservative.”
I’m not a prude. But the office of the President of the United States is higher than just a political office. It is a reflection of our national morality. Morals DO count, or so I like to believe.
But I could be wrong. We’ll know by next November.