ABORTION-KILLING THE UNBORN! (via YOU DECIDE)

YOU DECIDE speaks of a tract that Ronald Reagan wrote while he was president.

ABORTION-KILLING THE UNBORN! I Just finished reading (wow) a book that was first published 1983, a book that gives the most inner  thoughts of a man, a leader that this country of ours was blessed to call “Mr.  President”; Yes one of our Presidents while in office had got to write and express his thoughts and feeling about killing babies! The book is called “ABORTION AND CONSCIENCE OF A NATION” written by President “Ronald Wilson Reagan”. In the introduction page the publish … Read More

via YOU DECIDE

The tract itself is not that long. Nonetheless, it is surprisingly thoughtful. Reagan’s words have a way of jerking us to attention. So you can read what Reagan wrote in book form, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation (New edition/issue). Otherwise, we can read Reagan’s tract online, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation — Ronald Reagan’s pro-life tract.

About these ads

About Citizen Tom

I am just an average citizen interested in promoting informed participation in the political process.
This entry was posted in Prolife and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to ABORTION-KILLING THE UNBORN! (via YOU DECIDE)

  1. wdednh says:

    Thank very much for the Link :)

    Like

  2. Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    “I have endorsed each of these measures, as well as the more difficult route of constitutional amendment…”

    Why not a Constitutional Amendment ala the 14th. Amend the 14th to state:

    “All persons born (as defined as the point of conception) or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    Are you truly ready to extend ALL rights to the unborn? Think about things like the Equal Protection Clause…

    But if that were to be passed, (i.e. a legal agreement that life begins at conception), then we would have no choice but to outlaw all abortions. Who would argue against it? I wonder what happens when we start weighing the rights of two competing “citizens”? Who has the overriding right to self defense, Tom?

    Like

  3. Citizen Tom says:

    Eric – I think abortion is wrong, but I cannot force that belief on anyone else. With so many in favor of “abortion rights”, that difficulty creates problems, problems that a quick fix with harsh, unpredictable and hard to reverse results just worsen. What happens if a constitutional amendment just allows Congress and the President to make the mess worse? What do we do then? That amendment would be harder to reverse than any Supreme Court decision.

    When the Supreme Court “decided” the issue, why did their decision more problems? It froze the debate. It set in stone a solution most people think wrong.

    An issue as complex as abortion is best left to the states. There the legislators are closer to the People, and they can more easily respond to our concerns.

    Judges don’t respond to our concerns. At best they make an honest effort to interpret the law. At worse they abuse the law by applying their personal opinions. They do not respond the concerns of the People. At least, they are not suppose to. That is not their job.

    With fifty states working on the issue, at least a few of them will come up with a palatable solution. In time most (but not all) of the other states will imitate the states which come up with the most palatable solutions.

    Note I did not say that any state will come up with the right solution. Because we are human, the best we can do is an optimal solution, one that satisfies most people. Yet if we are not willing to accept some wrong from our fellows, then we must contend with the greater wrong of tyranny.

    Like

  4. Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    “An issue as complex as abortion is best left to the states.”

    See, Tom, here you and I differ. Murder is not an issue best left to the states. Citizen’s rights are not issues best left to the states. The definition of who is s citizen of the US is not best left to the states. These are the underlying issues of abortion. Abortion is an EASY issue if we all accept a point of where life begins. But we MUST be consistent. Why would we say that a human being exists in one state but if you cross a state line that human being no longer exists? I can accept an agreed upon definition of who is a human and therefore a citizen – just as we all did with the 14th amendment. But all rights of citizenhood MUST be extended to each and every human citizen (born or unborn) based on this definition. To do otherwise is 100% counter to our founding prinicples and the Constitution. Did we NOT learn that during our civil war?

    Like

  5. Citizen Tom says:

    Eric

    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. — Ralph Waldo Emerson (from here)

    Emerson was a Unitarian, and he led a movement we call Transcendentalism. Since I don’t support either Transcendentalism or Unitarianism, I suppose you could say I don’t support Emerson, but that’s not exactly true. I just don’t want him to run my life, and I don’t think he wanted to run mine. There is a lot of agreement to be found is such a simple concession.

    Like

    • Eric the 1/2 troll says:

      Tom,

      If there is one thing that has been determined in our more than two centuries as a country, it is that in America we treat everybody consistently or equally – or at least that is what we SHOULD do under our system of government (and the priciple has been upheld innumerable times). To me Emerson was lauding the infrequent inconsistencies not a system of total and complete inconsistency. I government built on inconsistencies is anarchy.

      To go back, some things NEED to be addressed and determined on the federal level – murder and who is a citizen of the US are clearly two of these. Why would you NOT agree with that premise?

      Like

  6. Citizen Tom says:

    Eric – It seems to me you are arguing for is a highly centralized government. I don’t know what you think proves we need such a thing. What each of us has right to expect is equality before the law. So long as each state government provides equality before state laws, then the citizens of that state hav equality before the law.

    If we don’t like the laws of a state, we have two options. We can move, or we can campaign for change. If a central government made all the laws, moving to get away from bad laws would become very difficult. That is one reason we have chosen for our central government to define citizenship requirements.

    State governments have defined murder throughout most of our history, the federal government’s usurpation of abortion law being a relatively recent change. If the national consistency of our abortion laws is the most broken thing about our murder laws, then why do you want to make it worse.

    Note the caprice in the Roe v. Wade decision. Based upon the law and precedent, no one had any right to expect that decision. Look it up. Look at how the court justified their decision. Other than an irrational desire for consistency, that decision has no substantive legal basis.

    You abhor anarchy? My personal opinion is that tyranny is the worse form of anarchy. Tyranny exposes us to the caprices of our rulers. The more we centralize our government, the more we risk tyranny. That’s because our federal system with federal, state, and local governments disperses power, thereby limiting the potential for tyranny.

    Like

  7. Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    “If we don’t like the laws of a state, we have two options. We can move, or we can campaign for change.”

    I am sure that the supporters of the old Jim Crow laws would like to have us all think that – but it is, in fact, not true.

    “State governments have defined murder throughout most of our history…”

    If you mean by this statement “exclusively” which is what you imply, you would be wrong. Title 18 U.S.C. 1111 is the federal murder statute.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001111—-000-.html

    Read it. It provides the very federal level protection you seek for the unborn. The issue is not one of “is murder illegal”. The issue is one of defining the term “human being” and “citizen”. That IS the exclusive territory of the US federal government – NOT a state by state issue. This is not vesting the central government with more power – they already HAVE the power and duty to define what a citizen is and who federal law applies to – rightly so. Your problem is that right now, as it stands, a fetus is not recognized by the legislature OR the Constitution as a “human being”. If it were (and the BEST way to do that is through a Constitutional Amendment) that “human being” would immediately be accorded all American rights under the Constitution.

    In short, answer me this, IF you believe the definition of a human being includes a fetus or embryo, why would you NOT want that to be a matter of law?

    Like

    • Citizen Tom says:

      Eric

      I am sure that the supporters of the old Jim Crow laws would like to have us all think that – but it is, in fact, not true.

      That’s a curious assertion. Blacks did move, and Blacks did campaign for change.

      I suppose you want to point to the 14th amendment as the solution. However, given when the 14th Amendment was passed and the Jim Crow laws went into effect, that argument does not make much sense.

      We often point to the 14th Amendment, congressional legislation, and judicial decisions as the great victories. While those things were important, they were only the effect, not the cause of the change we now know as the civil rights movement.

      To stop people from doing evil, to change the law is not nearly enough. What must change is what we find in our hearts and souls. When Blacks resolutely but peacefully demanded their rights, their example shamed a great many people. Because of the example of courage and of civility offered by demonstrating Blacks, America could no longer hide from itself the crime that is racism. When each of us contrasted the courage and the example of people emulating the example of Christ Jesus with what we found in our own hearts, we repented asked for God’s forgiveness. It was only then that the 14th Amendment or any law prohibiting racism could be enforced.

      Consider the present public attitude towards abortion. With respect to the crime that is abortion, too many people have no desire to repent. So you may as well stop whistling Dixie. If we can get a few state governments to pass laws that discourage abortion, that will be an accomplishment. Such a feat would also parallel the struggle against slavery.

      Like

  8. Eric the 1/2 troll says:

    “I suppose you want to point to the 14th amendment as the solution.”

    No the solution was the Civil Rights Act and other associated federal legislation. The fact of the matter is if the federal government did not act, the south would not have ever changed.

    You do have a point that minds had to to also be changed but in this case (abortion) many minds are already changed. There is certainly no shortage of PR going on regarding the issue. But if you believe that abortion is an evil on the level of (or greater than) the civil rights issues of the South, then you need to accept that it needs to be eradicated across the board on the FEDERAL level. Currently, federal legislation is unconstitutional – as is state. No new laws that outlaw the practice need to be passed if you truly believe it is murder. The thing that needs to change on a legal basis is the definition of a “human being”. Once that definition is changed, the existing laws can be applied appropriately. DO you or do you not TOM believe an embryo is a “human being”? Assuming you DO, why would you not want that a matter of recognized law? Assuming you do (again) why would you not want ALL laws and rights that apply to OTHER human beings to apply to this new class of human beings?

    I will put it this way, if Virginia passes a law outlawing abortion because it is murder of a human being, then THAT is a de facto recognition that an embryo is a “human being”. In this case, ALL laws protecting ALL human beings should be applied to that embryo. Correct? It really does not matter if it is a federal issue or a state issue – it is a matter of equality under the law – a God-given issue, if you please.

    Like

    • Citizen Tom says:

      Eric – A law is not a magic wand. We cannot force each other to believe anything. Who am I that I have any right to force everyone else to believe what I believe? When we try, we just create other problems. Don’t you know that two wrongs cannot make a right?

      Consider that period we call Reconstruction. After the Civil War, a Republican Congress passed constitutional amendments which gave it the power to protect the rights of Blacks. And that Congress tried to protect the rights of Blacks. It could not do it. Southern Whites would have none of it. Even when Blacks move into northern cities, the Whites there treated them as second class citizens. So rather than keep the South perpetually garrisoned with Union troops, Congress accepted the rebel states back into the Union warts and all.

      All a good law does is state a self-evident truth. Is the fact that an unborn baby is human self-evident? You may think so — I may think so, but not everyone agrees.

      So how do we protect the rights of the unborn? We do our best to explain why abortion is wrong, and we help expectant mothers make the right choice. When a stick does not work, we try a carrot. We make an example of our belief in deeds as well as words.

      Like

Comments are closed.