EDITORIAL

Looking for a little ‘pro-life’ consistency

Posted 6/29/22

There’s a moral hypocrisy embedded in the modern abortion debate.

Those often aligned with the so-called “pro-life” movement, by political affiliation, also tend to support …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
EDITORIAL

Looking for a little ‘pro-life’ consistency

Posted

There’s a moral hypocrisy embedded in the modern abortion debate.

Those often aligned with the so-called “pro-life” movement, by political affiliation, also tend to support capital punishment and deny the need for universal healthcare and societal safety nets.

The loudest abortion opponents tie the ending of a pregnancy to religious support beams like the Fifth Commandment (“Thou shalt not kill”). However, this belief in the absolute preservation of life seems to end soon after birth.

In the United States, the same opponents of abortion are politically aligned with open-carry firearm rights activists. Guns kill people. People who carry guns, legally or not, possess lethal firepower.

Thou shalt not kill? Let’s be consistent in all things.

If the state or federal governments want to drastically limit, or eliminate abortion, then lawmakers should start by eliminating many of the societal ills that lead women down the path toward pregnancy termination.

If this nation better supported its citizens — through subsidized childcare, affordable housing, affordable healthcare for all — then there would be far fewer women who fear the future post-pregnancy.

Let’s take this “pro-life” stance all the way.

As a “pro-life” nation, we need to value every life — the embryo, the pregnant mother, the infant, the toddler, the teenager, the young adult, the midlife parent, the convict, the senior citizen and the terminally ill.

No more complaints about high taxes. Our taxes will be used to help support American lives. By direct correlation, our higher taxes will help preserve the sanctity of life (no more need for the military industrial complex).

We should end all wars and adopt a Swiss neutrality stance. Remember? Though shalt not kill. War’s no excuse.

And since the Christian Ten Commandments are older than the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment must be overruled. If saving the life of a mother who faces an ectopic pregnancy is no excuse for abortion, then firing a pistol at a burglar is no excuse for ending the life of a trespasser.

Remember? Thou shalt not kill.

Let’s be consistent in all things.

This editorial must not be misconstrued as either pro or anti-abortion. This is an anti-hypocrisy editorial that calls for consistency regarding the sanctity of life.

We must end all wars. Always wear a mask (just in case we’re carrying a virus). We should all drive slowly (just in case we encounter bad drivers). We must surrender our guns and stop eating meat. We must encourage and support all forms of immigration, ensuring no lives are lost on the arduous cross-border journeys made by humans looking for a better life. We must end capital punishment and ensure our police never use their weapons to kill suspects in the line of duty.

We must respect the sanctity of life — all lives. We must be consistent in all things.

Or, we can live in a free society where citizens make informed choices. We don’t need to agree with those choices. But we can respect our fellow Americans’ right to make the choice for themselves, and their families.

Choice or no choice? That’s the real choice.

It echoes throughout every word of the U.S. Constitution. Or at least it used to …

editorial, pro-life

Comments

2 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • umpwuggly

    The Bill of Rights mentions the Right to life, Liberty and the Pursuit. The Constitution recognizes and enumerates these Rights. These are based on Natural Rights.

    The question is "When does the Life start?" Let's use objectivity can the fetus survive on it's own? I believe science has us down to a 24 week preemie surviving. Therefore the Government is responsible to protect the Citizen's Right to Life, 24 weeks should be a cut off for ********s provided the Life of the mother is not in undue jeopardy. I don't believe any laws limiting ******** don't have a clause about the Life of the mother.

    The Second Amendment of the Constitution recognizes Citizens are allowed to be armed. The premise is that they would be able to defend their Life or Property if necessary. This is a Natural Right. I would expect any living thing to protect itself, home and family. A rooster will protect a hen against a hawk and a bull will go after a lion if required. I would not take the talons and beak of a rooster or the horns of the bull away.

    Capital Punishment is different than ******** in that a criminal has been found guilty and sentenced. How? The Constitution 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments spell it out pretty clearly. Has the 24 week old infant that we know may survive outside the womb been granted these Rights? The criminal facing capital punishment has. No one is allowed to take another Citizen's Rights if they do they face the courts that determined if it was justified. If found guilty that Citizen's Rights are forfeit by Government at the consent of the People that have charged it with protecting Rights.

    So I'm not necessarily Pro-Life or religious. I'm a U.S. Citizen that appreciates the Constitution.

    Tuesday, July 5 Report this

  • umpwuggly

    *My mistake it's the Declaration of Independence mentioning the Rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit.*

    Thursday, July 14 Report this