VP Kamala Harris recently spoke about rights guaranteed us in the Declaration of Independence, perhaps the greatest document ever written. However, Harris didn’t quote its well-known phrase correctly, and not by mistake either.
Harris delivered a speech in Tallahassee, Florida, on Sunday to mark the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that for decades guaranteed abortion rights across the United States.
“America is a promise. It is a promise of freedom and liberty—not for some, but for all. A promise we made in the Declaration of Independence that we are each endowed with the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” Harris said. “These rights were not bestowed upon us. They belong to us as Americans.”
Harris listed only two of three inalienable rights, excluding the inalienable right to “Life”. Is it inconvenient, damaging to the pro-choice movement, to acknowledge this basic God-given right? Is it better to pretend it was never said and to attempt to re-write history?
The abortion issue differentiates the two parties (they are far more alike than most realize). Most Republicans either oppose abortion altogether or, at least, want some limits. The mostly pro-choice Democrats consider that view extreme; they tell us “choice” is synonymous with liberty. Re-writing the Declaration of Independence to suit your agenda and denying the fundamental of right to life in order to maintain credibility on the “choice” issue is the real extreme.
How is Extreme Defined?
This NPR article says the Republican Party position on abortion is extreme.
“You say, ‘OK, what issues are on your mind?’ They say, ‘inflation, the economy, crime, supply chain.’ That’s what they’d say up top,” Longwell said.
But then, abortion would come up later: “When you get to the vote choice, like, ‘Who do you want to vote for, [Arizona Democratic Senate candidate] Mark Kelly or [Republican] Blake Masters?’ People would say, ‘Oh, I’m not voting for Blake Masters. His position on abortion is insane.’ And that theme would repeat itself with Adam Laxalt in Nevada, with Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania, with Tudor Dixon in Michigan, where I think abortion played a huge role.”
One way to read this is that abortion was not necessarily top of mind, but it was a prominent data point supporting a narrative that some Republicans were too extreme. That’s how Democratic strategist Tom Bonier sees it.
What is insane or too extreme about the views of Masters, Laxalt, Mastriano, Dixon, and Republicans in general? The article doesn’t say. These folks defend the right to life for the most vulnerable in our society, those who have no voice themselves. That is insane and too extreme? You may disagree with them, but they make a rational argument, one consistent with our founding principles of the right to life. The right to “choose” abortion was never a founding principle; it was never even declared for 200 years. Refusing to acknowledge the right to life by deliberately excluding words in the Declaration of Independence seems far more extreme.
If pro-choice folks won’t stand up for the life of an unborn child, can we count on them to stand up for life in other instances? Where does this slippery slope lead? Canada’s government today openly facilitates suicide for their own citizens, not simply for those with terminal illnesses (https://nypost.com/2022/10/28/canada-expanding-assisted-suicide-law-to-the-mentally-ill/). The unwillingness to protect the lives of the unborn leads to an unwillingness to fight for the lives of adult citizens, starting with the most vulnerable. How can such a culture survive?
Gretchen Whitmer (COVID lockdown fiend) defeated the aforementioned Tudor Dixon (a well-spoken and sane candidate) in a 2022 gubernatorial race; she stressed her allegiance to the choice issue, echoing the “My body, my decision,” pro-choice mantra.
However, the “decision” is not one regarding her own liberty, but one regarding the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of another. Taking another’s life is immoral. That’s our entire insane and too extreme argument summed up. Furthermore, the “body” the governor refers to is not her body at all; therefore, destroying that body is not a decision she should be allowed by a moral society. Parents have a fundamental responsibility to protect children; that responsibility does not mean you may determine whether your child lives or dies.
The NPR article also tries to explain why some pro-life candidates, excluding those noted above, won easily. For instance, Greg Abbot won in Texas, a state the Left claims has become more blue and Ron DeSantis won by twenty percentage points in Florida. Why did these two pro-life candidates win easily? Why did New York, as blue and as pro-choice as they come have a significant shift towards Republicans in 2022?
“In Texas, people generally like the job that Abbott’s doing, right? They thought that he did a good job on COVID, and culturally they feel like they are with him more than they’re not with him,” she said. “And so people will tolerate being out of step [with him] on something like abortion, especially if it’s not a high priority issue for them.”
Again, NPR does not explain how opposing abortion is “out-of-step”. The article claimed earlier abortion was a big factor in the Democrats stronger-than-expected showing in Michigan (among other places), yet at the same time it downplays abortion as a priority issue when pro-life candidates won. Go figure.
Ancient cultures, including the chosen people, the Jews, sacrificed their children to Molech. This practice was prohibited in the Old Testament when Abraham was directed not to sacrifice his child, but a ram instead. Ancient cultures needed to be taught this lesson in a rather simplistic manner. Ours should know better. Nevertheless, our technologically advanced and ever-so-progressive culture has descended into the pagan practices of thousands of years ago. This is what happens when traditional norms are destroyed. https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/4372130/jewish/The-Tragic-History-of-Molech-Child-Sacrifice.htm
The NPR article continues to dig deeper and actually inches closer to the truth (before it sways astray later).
“I think it was not only smart, but right of them to say there isn’t some line, there isn’t some like countdown clock in which you go from being a full autonomous human being to property of the state,” said Analilia Mejia, codirector of the progressive Center for Popular Democracy.
Indeed, there is no point when a fetus, a protoplasm blob (insert whatever term you prefer) suddenly becomes an “autonomous human being”. Drawing the line of when life begins at heartbeat, viability, or any other measure of development is futile. The line is drawn at conception. Before conception there is nothing: no life, no argument. After conception, there is life, life that will develop unless nature or another human intervenes. This is the key point. One must deny this fundamental truth to be pro-choice. The pro-choice folks are uncomfortable with their own choices, so they label ours extreme to appease their own consciences. Even those in the middle, those who would make exceptions or allow abortions in certain instances, always encounter a contradiction. Conception means life suddenly exists where there was none before. We have no argument with anyone before conception, only after conception.
It is ridiculous to say there is a line when one suddenly becomes “property of the state”. Not allowing one human being to take the life of another human being makes nobody “property of the state”. Our criminal justice code already provides a myriad of restrictions to freedom; nobody says “restrictions” on murder, theft, rape, etc. make you a “property of the state”, so why would restrictions on abortion? How does government’s denials of the right to end another’s life turn anyone into property of the state? To re-emphasize the point: everything changes at conception. You are not responsible for another human being until conception, and then you, through your own actions (father included), become responsible. It happens in an instant. After conception, there is a being which if allowed to develop will become human.
The NPR article next defines exceptions for rape or incest as appropriate and says opposing these restrictions is extreme. Finally, they provide an example of “extreme”, although only for a small percentage of abortions.
“We have a number of laws that have been passed by Republican legislatures that are far from the mainstream, that include no exceptions, for example, for for rape or incest,” he told a post-election panel at the Roper Center for Public Opinion. “That’s the very definition of outside the mainstream.”
Assume you are the unborn child whose right to life is debated. The rest of us should hope you have an opportunity to live a happy and productive life. If you were an illegal alien child coming from a god-forsaken past with a dream to make your way in this country, then your dreams would be elevated, often by those who are pro-choice. Nevertheless, we want everyone (unborn child, illegal alien, or other) afforded an opportunity to live well and fulfill his/her life’s purpose. But if you are a child in the womb, a child who one day might also have dreams, you are put in a different category. Why do you not have the same opportunity? Because your father is a rapist or an incestuous scumbag, you do not deserve to live? Per NPR, you should be punished for the sins of your parents. NPR defines this notion as mainstream, sane, and not extreme. No, NPR’s interpretation is the extreme position.
VP Harris was subtle in her attack on the Declaration of Independence (DOI), but the “expert” NPR found is not subtle at all:
Author Landis Lain pointed out that women and people of color were not given equal rights at the time the Declaration of Independence was drafted, tweeting: “The Declaration of Independence only applies to white men. It does not mention women or children or fetuses at all. Thus, women and children have no right to life. That has been illustrated over and over again in this life in America.”
Landis Lane is completely wrong. The words of the DOI were absolute:
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness
It is true the document specifically avoided the word “women”, but it does not explicitly exclude blacks, children, fetuses, or anyone else. It was never necessary to create a list of who was to be included, just that nobody was to be excluded. Jefferson could have easily limited rights to white men, but instead, he (and other white men) opened the door to what was not fully possible in that day. The words’ eternal promise were a beacon for future iconoclasts like Frederick Douglas, Susan B Anthony, and Martin Luther King who exposed the hypocrisy by showing the promise did not match society’s laws. The founders built a solid foundation and future generations fulfilled the promise to its logical end.
Be humbled by the notion your actions today will be judged harshly by future generations with different values and belief systems than your own. It is ever-so-easy 250 years later to criticize the founders for not mentioning women, but in 1776, a time when nations were still ruled by kings, it was the most “inclusive” document ever written. Even women of that day understood the words’ promise and ardently defended that promise. Even VP Harris in 2023 re-iterated that promise applies to all. The worst I can say about the founders is they were hypocrites, but we are all hypocrites at some point in our lives. In addition, the founders were visionary; they opened the door for true equality knowing that future generations would find a way to fully manifest the promise.
To say the document intended that women, children, and fetuses had no right to life is to show one’s absolute ignorance of history and common sense. Such facile and ridiculous analysis is all to common-place today. Today, there is no doubt transgenders, gays, women, and other supposedly oppressed groups have the same rights afforded us all: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, the promise needs to be expanded further still, specifically to the unborn. This is the frontier we need to open today. Let’s not trash the document; let’s recognize its power and work to fulfill its promise.
It is also relevant that the words in the declaration were a compromise; it could have been even broader in its time. Jefferson himself condemned the practice of slavery under King George in the DOI, but his words were struck; we might have remained British colonies otherwise. People today tell themselves they would have been done more were they alive during that time. I doubt it.
(1776) The Deleted Passage of the Declaration of Independence
A statue honoring Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and her fight for “reproductive rights” was recently added to a Manhattan courthouse. I appreciate good art like anyone else, but what is this?
“She is a fierce woman and a form of resistance in a space that has historically been dominated by patriarchal representation,” said Sikander, who previously served on the New York Mayoral Advisory Commission of City Art, Monuments and Markers. She said the work was called “NOW” because it was needed “now,” at a time when women’s reproductive rights were under siege after the U.S. Supreme Court in June overturned the constitutional right to abortion.
Is this statue a woman at all? This is about “reproductive rights”, yet her reproductive organs were omitted. Why? She has no hands either, but rather tentacles which appear to dig into her own skin sado-masochist fashion. What does that signify? Maybe this would fit well in a modern art gallery, but why put it besides Moses and other law-givers? What great laws did Justice Ginsberg give us?
New York has put an androgynous baphomet with tentacles digging into its own torso on top of the courthouse in order to “better reflect 21st century social mores.”
Sounds about right.
https://t.co/bfm8rjMZo8— Canon Theologian of the Bible Belt ⚓️ (@NoJesuitTricks) January 25, 2023
Daily Wire podcast host and author Andrew Klavan tweeted that the “New York Courthouse has added this aesthetic atrocity to its sculptures of great lawmakers.”
“It is meant to honor Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s pro-abortion stance by depicting a woman with demonic goat-horns who has clearly lost the power to reproduce,” Klavan wrote. “Or something.”
Satan has been characterized by goat symbols. Androgyny is another of his characteristics. It is not a stretch to refer to the statue as demonic.
I am told advocating for life after conception is extreme, yet a statue with Satanic characteristics honoring advocates of abortion is not extreme?
Where is the extremism in the examples below?
First, we have the extremism of a proud pro-choice feminist:
How about this one? A London woman was arrested for silently protesting outside an abortion clinic.
Those who watched the woman’s arrest after admitting she was “praying in my head” were appalled. Some claimed this was proof that Great Britain had become a dystopia.
Who is extreme: the lone woman praying silently outside an abortion clinic or the government who seeks to discourage even such prayer?
We see similar intimidation in the USA also–a more extreme version, of course. Mark Houck, father of seven who also protested regularly outside abortion clinics was arrested for accosting another during a protest. Last September, a bevy of FBI agents were sent to his home to arrest him for this minor incident, one which he says was instigated by the other party accosting his son.
He said his lawyers at the time said that they would peacefully bring Houck in for questioning from authorities if needed.
“The next thing I know, I had 20-plus federal agents and state troopers banging on my door at 6:45 in the morning on Sept. 23, Friday morning,” he said.
They must have expected him to accept a plea deal, but Houck called the bluff and went to trial. He was acquitted.
What is extreme here: the man protesting or the government tactics to prevent him from protesting?
The House of Representatives last month passed a “born-alive” abortion protection bill.
The GOP-led House voted on Wednesday to pass a bill that would require health care providers to try to preserve the life of an infant in the rare case that a baby is born alive during or after an attempted abortion. The bill is not expected to be taken up in the Democratic-controlled Senate, but passage in the House serves as a messaging opportunity for the new Republican majority. The vote was 220 to 210.
All but one brave Democrat voted against the bill. One can be pro-choice and recognize the need to protect a child’s life in this instance. The child no longer shares body parts with its mother. “My body, my decision” cannot possibly apply. In 2007, before he was president, Barrack Obama also opposed a ban on partial birth abortion. He was in the minority in the party, but today his entire party defends abortion in all instances, even after birth. Who are the extremists here?
Have you heard abortion clinic bombings after Roe v. Wade was overturned last summer? There have been many. You hear only the stories the media wants you to hear.
Such violence is ignored by one-channel media because it doesn’t fit their narrative. They want us to hate white supremacists, not pro-abortion activists. The violence is just as real no matter who initiates it.
New York now allows abortions up to nine months. Governor Cuomo thought it an event to celebrate when it became law in 2019. Why is this an accomplishment?
Who has moved to the extremes: the pro-life or the pro-choice crowd?
For more on life issues: https://seek-the-truth.com/category/life/
Dave (About me: https://seek-the-truth.com/about/)