Category Archives: American Life League

I’m a Child, Not a Choice

Advertisements

From John Locke: On Life, Liberty and Estate

Originally published 7/5/2007

Thought we’d take a look at some of the sources of the rights enshrined in our Declaration of Independence

From Two Treatises of Government (1680-1690), Book II: An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government, Chapter 6: “Of Paternal Power,” Paragraph 59:

This holds in all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of nature? What made him free of that law? what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it; till then, some body else must guide him, who is presumed to know how far the law allows a liberty. If such a state of reason, such an age of discretion made him free, the same shall make his son free too. Is a man under the law of England? What made him free of that law? that is, to have the liberty to dispose of his actions and possessions according to his own will, within the permission of that law? A capacity of knowing that law; which is supposed by that law, at the age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him. And if the father die, and fail to substitute a deputy in his trust; if he hath not provided a tutor, to govern his son, during his minority, during his want of understanding, the law takes care to do it; some other must govern him, and be a will to him, till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his understanding be fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together, without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established government. (see this link or this link, emphasis added)

Ignoring the discriminatory term “being born,” derived from his primitive understanding of biological science, here is a quotation from Book II, Chapter 7: “Of Political or Civil Society,” paragraph 87:

Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrouled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion,
requires it. But because no political society can be, nor subsist, without having in itself the power to preserve the property, and in order thereunto, punish the offences of all those of that society; there, and there only is political society, where every one of the members hath quitted this natural power, resigned it up into the hands of the community in all cases that exclude him not from appealing for protection to the law established by it. And thus all private judgment of every particular member being excluded, the community comes to be umpire, by settled standing rules, indifferent, and the same to all parties; and by men having authority from the community, for the execution of those rules, decides all the differences that may happen between any members of that society concerning any matter of right; and punishes those offences which any member hath committed against the society, with such penalties as the law has established: whereby it is easy to discern, who are, and who are not, in political society together. Those who are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them, and punish offenders, are in civil society one with another: but those who have no such common people, I mean on earth, are still in the state of nature, each being, where there is no other, judge for himself, and executioner; which is, as I have before shewed it, the perfect state of nature (see this link or this link, emphasis added).

Lastly, this one from Book II, Chapter 11: “Of the Extent of the Legislative Power,” paragraph 135:

First, It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people: for it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person, or assembly, which is legislator; it can be no more than those persons had in a state of nature before they entered into society, and gave up to the community: for no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself; and no body has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another. A man, as has been proved, cannot subject himself to the arbitrary power of another; and having in the state of nature no arbitrary power over the life, liberty, or possession of another, but only so much as the law of nature gave him for the preservation of himself, and the rest of mankind; this is all he doth, or can give up to the common-wealth, and by it to the legislative power, so that the legislative can have no more than this. Their power, in the utmost bounds of it, is limited to the public good of the society. It is a power, that hath no other end but preservation, and therefore can never* have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects. The obligations of the law of nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have by human laws known penalties annexed to them, to inforce their observation. Thus the law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions, must, as well as their own and other men’s actions, be conformable to the law of nature, i. e. to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it (see this link or this one, emphasis added).

A rather old, but still apropros, guest post from my wife

Clinton’s abortion views are clearly contradictory
To the Editor:
In response to your article in the Stafford Neighbors section, “New kids on the political block,” I feel those Democrats, and others like them, must have hypocritical ignorance of their candidates.
I cannot understand how someone who is so concerned about prenatal care and Head Start and who is against the death penalty can at the same time call himself or herself pro-choice, meaning proabortion.
Bill Clinton and Al Gore are supposedly concerned about the future of America, but, hypocritically, they support the murder of the innocents, the children, the future of America.There are organizations to help mother and baby, like Birthright, which is now part of the United Way campaign, and adoption agencies. Instead of spending millions of dollars a year for infanticide, why not spend the money on the mother and her child? I feel we need to spend that money for more organizations like Birthright and Bethany Christian Services.
If one person kills another in the shadows, where they can’t see one another, it’s called murder. But when a woman with a child inside of her, a child she can feel but cannot see, kills the child, or as some put it, exercises her right, it is just a choice, not abortion.
I hope in the future that The Free Lance-Star will cover events like the hundreds of citizens who stood in the rain for three hours to show their love for all people, born and unborn. This event occurred Oct. 4 on U.S. 1.

Mary Hein
Stafford, VA

Letter to the Editor, The Free Lance-Star, Fredericksburg, VA, Thursday, October 22, 1992

Haley Versus Barrett: Who’s more Pro-Life?

As we prepare for the run-off in the 2010 South Carolina Republican gubernatorial primary, I hope to do a series of pieces comparing candidates Nikki Haley and Gresham Barrett.

First, obviously, is pro-life.

On Haley’s page, under “Right to Life,” there are three items.
The first is this video:

The second is this text:

I believe every life has a value and is blessed by God – my husband was adopted and my pro-life convictions stem from the fact I feel the blessings of that value every day knowing someone chose life for him. I see it every day in my two children as I watch them grow. My hope is that we continue to encourage and work towards educating that value of life to everyone.

OK, pretty generic Republican speech.

The third item is a letter from Holly Gatling of SC Citizens for Life, certifying Nikki Haley’s 100% pro-life voting record.

At one point last year, when I first heard of her campaign through Facebook, I found the state website that shows various pieces of legislation and legislators’ votes on them. Most of the votes were procedural, and full of so many double-negatives, I couldn’t figure out what was saying what. However, Haley had added her name to the list of co-sponsors for the South Carolina human life amendment.

Meanwhile, contender Gresham Barrett emphasizes self-congratulation on the meaningless partial birth abortion plan and the specific legislation for a 24 hour waiting period in South Carolina.

Granted, neither candidate expresses a particularly activist agenda on abortion, but there are key differences.

a) Haley, advertises her 100% rating which includes the Human Life Amendment; Barrett’s rhetoric shows him to be a dyed-in-the-wool incrementalist.
b) Haley emphasizes her personal commitment to the pro-life cause (due to her husband being adopted), versus Barrett’s focus being more clearly political,

I have always favored pro-life women over pro-life men, because most people do think of this as a “women’s issue.” I have always maintained that the only way to truly stop abortion is to have pro-life women in office, or men with strongly pro-life wives. Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush and Laura Bush are all pro-choice. Former SC Governor David Beasley’s father-in-law was an abortionist.

Secondly, male or female, every truly committed pro-lifer has a personal reason for being so. For Sarah Palin, it’s her son with Down’s syndrome and her out-of-wedlock grandchild. For Nikki Haley, it’s her husband.

A Letter to Fr. Michael Pfleger

Recently, the name of “Rev. Dr.” Michael L. Pfleger, the radical left-wing Chicago priest who is more aligned with Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan than with the Catholic Church, has made headlines.

It seems that Lord Francis Cardinal George, OMI, Archbishop of Chicago and President of the USCCB, often mistaken for a conservative, is showing his Oblate of Mary Immaculate colors once again while honoring Pfleger (whom he temporarily suspended a while back after mass protest from Catholics forced him to take some nominal action against this violent anti-life racist heretic).

Meanwhile, His Emminence has called for the censorship of a lay Catholic conservative activist named Tom Roeser, accusing Roeser of “hate speech”!!!

Why? Because Roeser dares to talk about the plague of homosexual priests in the Catholic priesthood, a plague which Cardinal Ratzinger himself has condemned!

It should be noted that George has had the opportunity of serving as bishop in charge of both Oregon Catholic Press and GIA, and if he were as orthodox as many think he is, he could have shut down both these subversive operations.

Anyway, after reading Michelle Malkin mentioning an e-mail exchange with Pfleger, I looked up “Pastor Pfleger’s” parish and sent him an e-mail of my own:

Dear Fr. Pfleger,

Why do you call yourself pastor and not father? Are you embarrassed of being a pastor of the True Church? I notice you spend a lot of time working with Protestant Heretics?

Do you teach your congregation that artificial contraception is always a mortal sin and they will go to Hell if they use it? What about abortion and in vitro fertilization?

Do you teach them that divorce and fornication are mortal sins?

Do you teach them that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered?

Do you teach them that what matters is total conformity to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and that *anyone* who thinks race matters *at all* is commiting a sin against justice?

Do you encourage perpetual adoration ? Do you permit liturgical abuses in your parish? Do you say the Vatican II Mass in Latin, the way that Pope Benedict, Pope John Paul II and retired Cardinal Arinze have said it should be said?

I’m curious, because I noticed how you were honored by your Archbishop for your representation of the Catholic faith, and from your public reputation, you are anything but.

Pax et bonum,
John C. Hathaway

“We’d like to thank you George W. Bush”

For all you’ve done for the Pro-Life Movement . . . .

1. Approving federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (so long as the babies are already dead).
2. Somehow deceiving millions into thinking you were pro-life, despite your repeated promises not to overturn Roe v. Wade.
3. Wasting further time and money on the “partial birth abortion ban” smoke and mirror, causing pro-lifers to think they’d done something other than ban one specific kind of rare late-term procedure (only because there are other procedures available that can do the same thing)..
4. Getting yourself praise for reinstating Mexico City Policy after Clinton while not reversing Clinton’s other two executive orders regarding federal funding of abortions, including permitting abortions on military bases (see below).
5. Completely ignoring Human Life International’s appeal that you repudiate and revoke the eugenicist agenda of NSSM-200 on its thirtieth anniversary in 2003, instead confirming your party’s true agenda, as that was the very year you got us into the kind of war predicted by said document’s long term plans.
6. Wasting the greatest approval ratings in recent history and a majority in both houses to push an immoral war, thus “postponing” and breaking most of your pro-family, pro-life campaign promises in *both* elections.
7. Attempting the Harriet Myers nomination–which should have been enough for pro-lifers to call your bluff–but then turning around and appointing John Roberts and Samuel Alito while deceiving the pro-life movement into believing these men were themselves pro-life.
8. Introducing an agenda of torture into US policy (and your supporters may question whether waterboarding constitutes “torture,” or claim that there are a “limited number of cases,” but there are plenty of documented offenses by the CIA, Blackwater and the Military that clearly fall under the category of “torture”). One day, Bush’s supporters will be looked on as equivalent to Holocaust Deniers in terms of their desire to simply ignore data to push an agenda. You’ve now caused a good deal of the pro-life leadership to compromise themselves by apologizing for torture and trying to minimize it, using some of the same strategies pro-choice Catholics use to justify legalized abortion. Oh, and it’s totally unnecessary, since all authentically pro-life candidates in 2008 opposed waterboarding, etc.
9. Turning many pro-life “Christians” into bloodthirsty revenge-seekers over 9/11
10. Appointing pro-abortionsts like Christine Todd Whitman and Tom Ridge to your cabinet, including making Ridge the first Director of “Homeland Security.”
Thus,
11. Coming after an administration that declared Pro-Lifers the #1 terrorist threat and spent its time tailing the Catholic bishops instead of Al-Qaeda, you a) vowed to wipe out “all terrorism,” b) set up a precedent for denying due process and torturing suspects, c) set up policies for violating US citizens’ Constitutional rights to root out suspected “terrorists” (even though that’s just the kind of thing the Constitution was written for, and d) stacked the Supreme Court with like-minded people.

Thusly,
12. Fulfilling the master plan of the real powers behind our country, hinted at in documents like NSSM-200, you alienated the country so much to lose your party’s hold over Congress and the White House, and paved the way for Barack Obama, who has set about carrying all those policies to the next level.

Yes, thank you President Bush. You did a great job of trying to build a Culture of Life.

Case in point: abortions on military bases. Clinton approved funding of them. Bush encouraged lots of women to sign up for the military to fight his wars. Now, pregnancy among women troops (wasn’t that one of the reasons for women not serving in the military??) is a growing “problem,” so Komrade Obama has ordered all US military bases and hospitals to stock the aborifacient “Morning After” pill.

Scott Brown: How the Pro-Life Movement has Fallen

At first, I was excited over Scott Brown. Then I found out his real positions on abortion. I have been genuinely torn about whether to be excited about this or not. It’s certainly a good thing in the short run, but not a good thing in the long run. Every time a pro-choice Republican wins is more reason for the Republicans to abandon the pro-life cause.

Anyway, Mark Shea has nicely delineated the slippery slope the Pro-Life Movement has made since selling its soul to Dubya ten years ago.

First, it was Bush over McCain because Bush was anti-embryonic stem cell research. Bush overturned 1 of Clinton’s *3* executive orders about abortion, permitting funding of abortions on military bases. Then Bush supported ESCR, and it was “I’m disappointed, but.” Bush tried to appoint pro-abortionists like Harriet Myers but got opposed and forced to appoint guys like Roberts and Alito who have yet to document any positions other than that they see _Roe v. Wade_ as settled law, and that abortions are OK so long as they’re not “gruesome”. Otherwise, in 8 years, he did zilch. When pro-lifers expressed outrage, Bush’s spokespeople said, “The president has always made clear that he supports _Roe v. Wade_.”

Which he did. Pro-lifers with Bush were like pacifists with Obama: they made him what they wanted him to be and ignored what he actually said. And they still do.

I posited at the time of Harriet Myers that maybe the pro-life movement was waking up to Bush like Sue Ellen finally dumping J.R., but that didn’t last long. Then people who used to speak of the dignity of the human person started agreeing with their President on human dignity not applying to “evil terrorists.”

Then, in 2008, McCain suddenly wasn’t that bad. Romney, who only became pro-life when he decided to run for president, was an avowed pro-lifer with a history of pro-life credentials.

We’re told that the end all and be all of pro-life activism is stopping partial birth abortion–one specific kind late term abortion that has been illegal for years now, even though the Supreme Court says it’s illegal because there are other ways to abort third trimester babies!!

Now, Scott Brown is the savior because he opposes federal funding of abortion and sort of supports conscientious objection.

Meanwhile, in early 2008, we had a candidate who
a. Said that presidents could be doing far more to fight abortion than they’d been doing
b. Supported measures to fight no-fault divorce
c. Supported homeschooling
d. Openly promoted Natural Law

and he didnt’ get support because
a) Catholics said they didn’t want to vote for a Baptist minister.
b) conservatives didn’t like the work he’d done for social justice as governor of Arkansas.

If Barack Obama had an “R” after his name instead of “D”, NRLC would find reason to declare him the greatest friend to the pro-life movement since Reagan. Oh, wait, Reagan appointed Kennedy and O’Connor.