Wednesday, October 29, 2008

The Pen is Mighter Than the Sword, But Only if the Pen is Held by Chuck Norris

God bless Chuck Norris, who wrote an amazing pro-life essay published on World Net Daily. Excerpt:

Some people think after 35 years of ceaseless controversy since the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade that abortion is an "old" issue better dropped. I do believe the economy is the issue in this election, but it's certainly not the only issue. We can't just be concerned about our finances. We must also be concerned about America's future, and those who occupy it. Our posterity matters. Their rights matter. And that includes their "unalienable Rights," with which have been "endowed by their Creator," and among them are the quintessential rights: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Abortion is not about a woman's "right to choose." It is about a more fundamental "right to life," which is one of three specifically identified unalienable rights in the Declaration (and the Constitution through Article VII and the Bill of Rights). And it is a violation of government's primary purpose: to protect innocent life.

We can couch our action in terms like "abortion," "termination" or "a women's right to choose," but it's still the killing of an "inconvenient" human life. And it won't end there. As my friend and prolific author Randy Alcorn wrote, "Abortion has set us on a dangerous course. We may come to our senses and back away from the slippery slope. Or we may follow it to its inescapable conclusion – a society in which the powerful, for their self-interest, determine which human beings will live and which will die." [...]

The truth is: If Obama is elected, we will place a man in the highest office in the land who has the most liberal views and voting record on abortion of any president in American history. As a state senator in Illinois, he led opposition three years in a row (2001-2003) to a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of babies unintentionally left alive by abortion. He also opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion and strongly disapproved of the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. He does not support the Hyde amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion through Medicaid. He also voted to block a bill that would have required a doctor to notify at least one parent before performing an abortion on a minor girl from another state. Before a Planned Parenthood action fund last year, Obama promised to give first priority as president to the signing of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would make partial-birth abortion legal again. Strangely, Obama even once said he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" due to an unwanted pregnancy. With the next president likely adding two justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, it is clear that, as president, Obama will appoint and support the most liberal judges and legal eagles, resulting in a pro-abortion advantage in our courts that will push abortion liberties to every extent of the law and land.
Do read the whole thing. Or Chuck Norris will find you and make you read it.

Seriously, the one good thing that has come out of this election season has been the uplifted voices of so many people, from bishops to public figures to celebrities to ordinary men and women, all of them saying in the face of the ugly reality of abortion and the hideous disregard for human life our national laws permitting abortion on demand from conception until birth (and perhaps even after, if Obama has his way): Enough. Enough of this madness, this destruction of innocent human lives, this infliction of pain and psychological trauma on the women left to grieve a loss they dare not even acknowledge in the face of the world's approval of their "choices."

Let's keep that going, whomever is elected next Tuesday. Let's keep focusing on the blood of the innocent shed every day in this country, in the name of "choice." Let's recommit to ending abortion in America.


Irenaeus said...

Oh, this thing will be kept going. We ain't yet begun to fight.

I was thinking of the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, since we're about at 50 million abortions and WWII claimed 50 million lives:

[T]here are three possible ways in which the church can act toward the state: the first place, as has been said, it can ask the state whether its actions are legitimate and accordance with its character as state; i.e., it can throw the state back on its responsibility. Second, it can aid the victims of any ordering of society, even if they do not belong to Christian community — "Do good to all people." In both these courses of action, the church serves the free state in its free way, and at times when laws are changed the church may in no way withdraw itself from these two tasks. The third possibility is not just to bandage the victims under the wheel, but to jam a spoke in the wheel itself.

Don't know what that will look like, but it bears consideration.

eulogos said...

It will look like having your house and all your assets confiscated after you are arrested for sitting in at an abortion clinic.

That is what stopped Randall Terry's group; the RICO anti organized crime laws were used against the anti abortion movement and this happened to some leaders. (including, I think, Terry himself.) I was arrested once, with his group, before that, but once it meant losing the house, poor as it was, that sheltered my large family, I stopped. At that point, the cost would not have been any more a hundred buck fine (which someone paid for me as I did not have the resources) but would have meant losing my house which would have meant losing my children to foster care. (Few apartments have enough room for 9 children and landlords usually refuse to rent to families they consider too large for their apartments. If you can't provide a home for your children, the state takes them. That's the reality.) I thought that was too high a price.

The courts have now ruled that the RICO laws cannot be used in that way, but the abortion business is already working on prosecutions using the anti-terrorism laws which were passed after 9/11. And how do you think an Obama appointed court would rule about that?

I will be at the Right to Life March on Jan 22. (as I was on Jan 22 1974, by the way,with a one month old baby with me, at that time little thinking it would still be necessary in 2008.) I wonder how we will be treated at the March if Obama is president.

Susan Peterson