Friday, April 23, 2010

The Right to Kill?

This year promises to be another turbulent one as President Barack Obama gears up to appoint another Supreme Court judge.  Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the Court’s liberal judges, is 90 years old and set to retire soon.

It was inevitable that the sensitive topic of abortion would arise soon into the court appointment discussions.  Unfortunately and as always, we can expect Obama to be on the side of death.  In an Associated Press (AP) article from Wednesday, April 21, written by Ben Feller, Obama’s thoughts are clearly expounded…once one gets past all the rhetoric.

Obama wants to have it both ways: on the one hand, he insists that “he won’t enforce any abortion rights ‘litmus test.’”  But then he says, out the other side of his mouth, that “he will choose a nominee who pays heed to the rights of women and the privacy of their bodies.”  (Please see http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100421/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_supreme_court)

First of all, does Obama not know that the “right to privacy” does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution?  And even if it was in the Constitution, would “the right to privacy” include the right to kill a baby?  Think about it with this perspective: would “the right to privacy” include the right to beat one’s spouse or child?  After all, that can be done in the privacy of the home.  “Keep the government out of my bedroom!” is a common mantra among the pro-abortion crowd.  Okay, so they should stay out of the bedroom if a parent is beating his or her child?

Any sane person would wholeheartedly agree that the above question is preposterous.  Of course the authorities should intervene if a child or spouse is being beaten!  And so it should be when unborn children are being slaughtered in their mothers’ wombs.  But unfortunately, that is not the case, and it has been this way for the past 37 years.  What is even more chilling is that the AP article says that this new justice “has the potential to affect the lives and rights of Americans for a generation or more.”

This means that, since it’s inevitable that Obama will appoint a pro-abortion, liberal judge, abortion very well could still be legal as my future children grow up and even as my grandchildren grow up.  I do not want them doing what my generation has had to do, what we’ve had to live with.  We have grown up as the “abortion survivors.”  We know that at any point, for whatever reason, our mothers had the free, legal choice to kill us…and millions of mothers did.  Young people are one of the driving forces behind the modern pro-life movement.  Even NARAL has admitted that young pro-lifers are more passionate and active about our cause than young pro-aborts are about theirs.

Obama lacks moral clarity in both his knowledge of the United States Constitution (which he swore to uphold, by the way) and in his knowledge of simple, embryological science: the right to privacy NEVER appears in the Constitution and LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.  It can’t get any simpler than that, Mr. President, and I would hope that discerning something so straightforward is not above your pay grade.

Click here for live video

Send Us Your Pro-Life News

Send us your photos, articles, videos and audio, or sign up to become a ProLifeNews.tv roving reporter.

Read more...

  • Join us at MonthlyCallForLife.com
  • Volunteer for Action
  • ProLifeUnity.com
  • Take Action Calendar
  • JillStanek.com
  • ProLifeBlogs.com
  • News Links
  • ProLifeParishProject.com
  • .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)


    Advanced Search

    ProLifeUnity.com


    Multimedia Pro Life News - Multimedia Pro-Life news - Multimedia ProLife News - Multimedia ProLifeNews - ProLifeNews.tv - ProLife News - ProLifeNews