you have the right to remain alive…
by McKell Myers
Published: February 7, 2008
Cameron Contois’ rebuttal to this article: “rebuttal to: you have the right to remain alive…“
–
To abort: to can, cut short, ditch, drop or fail. Perhaps in cases we find times when we must abort missions, plans, ships, vacations sure… but what about children?
Thousands marched the streets of DC up to the steps of the Supreme Court on January 22, 2008 protesting against abortion. It was in remembrance of the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the founders intended on including a line about abortions and “the right to privacy” in the 14th amendment but forgot.
So with Norma L. McCorvey (AKA Jane Roe) in mind, I’d like to take this opportunity to turn our attention away from violence against the Sunnis in Iraq and the Moderates in Pakistan and the Monks in Burma and every other oppressed group, and focus on the violence against fetuses in American hospital rooms. No matter how much freedom we spread throughout the world, our accomplishments will always be overshadowed by the fact that our society defends a mother’s right to kill her unborn child. At least they ought to be overshadowed.
In 1997, Mother Teresa was invited to the White House Prayer Breakfast hosted by the Clintons. She clearly opposed their stance on abortion and made the following statement on the subject: “It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships… it has portrayed the greatest of gifts ” a child ” as a competitor, an intrusion and an inconvenience.”
“Hands off my body,” responds the pro”choice crowd. But really, pro”choice is a rather deceiving title. It’s as if those who oppose abortion also oppose one’s freedom to choose. As Americans, we all believe in choices. We understand the importance of freedom; but we, like all humans, are creatures of consequence. Consequences, whether good or bad, accompany all choices we make.
Today society would have us believe that we are above consequence and that we can ignore our moral compasses by simply making another choice. By using arguments of “choice” to alter the related consequences, we rob our society of the accountability. How do we teach the rising generation to value human worth when mothers are killing their own children? What makes war against another armed man worse than war against the innocent, the helpless?
Pro”lifers are pro”choice in nearly every other arena. Work where you want, study what you want, say what you want. Just don’t end someone’s life because you don’t want to deal with the consequences. We understand the importance of freedom just as well as you do. The only difference is that we won’t pretend that we can erase the consequences of our actions with a visit to the doctor’s office.
All our laws are rooted in moral principle and you could argue that all laws hinder choices to some degree. But we are all aware of what happens to a society that doesn’t recognize laws; therefore, we forfeit choices in some areas to ensure a far more ample supply in others. Furthermore, it is not enough to stand against abortion in our personal life but allow “choice” in public policy. By granting the rights to abortion we make a liar out of the constitution and stand hypocritical in our claims of world peace.
Surrendering our influence in causes of life is always wrong and will only lead to a society ill”equipped to grant life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all its inhabitants. “Ill”equipped” is an understatement indeed, as an aborted fetus has no life, no liberty and will never pursue anything.
–
Read Cameron Contois’ rebuttal to this article: “rebuttal to: you have the right to remain alive…“
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
