This year’s Prolife rally 1/19/08 will have as their guest speaker Rick Jore, Montana’s Constitution Party Legislator. The Constitution Party is starting a petition drive for an amendment to the Montana Constitution which recognizes that personhood begins at conception. This would entitle the unborn to all the rights of every other Montanan person, including the right to life. |
Travis McAdam, research director for the Montana Human Rights Network, in his 12/2/07 Daily Interlake Op-ed Page letter, resorted to the usual tactics of the pro-abortion forces. If he wanted to be honest and useful in disseminating information, he could have given an accurate description of the proposed amendment along with his personal opinion as to why an unborn child should NOT be considered a person. Instead, he avoided rational discourse altogether, and chose to stigmatize and vilify. He describes Mr. Jore’s Constitutional Party as “fringe,” and seeking to “base civil law on right-wing biblical doctrine (…meaning capital punishment could be extended to gays, lesbians, blasphemers, and adulterers…and those not Christian enough…), while pandering to the militia movement’s hatred of established government.” Mr. McAdam implies that Mr. Jore’s party “creates activists like Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber…and seeks to dismantle public education and keep the government from offering social services.” He stigmatizes the intent of the proposed amendment by calling some ramifications of it “mean-spirited sentiment that reveals the tip of his party’s extreme ideology...guarantees the state will have an intrusive role in every decision a pregnant woman makes.” He goes on to say that supporting the proposed constitutional amendment encourages the growth of this “fringe” political party. |
There are many reasons why the pro-abortion forces use cagey tactics such as creating smokescreens instead of directly addressing the issues. One reason is that they know that vilifying the proposer of the amendment will stop some from supporting the amendment that otherwise might support it based on facts rather than rhetoric. The more fundamental reason for evading discussing the issue is that the destruction of innocent human life cannot be rationally supported. What renders pro-abortion individuals impotent from the standpoint of rational argument is that the unborn child is undeniably a human being. That is not philosophy, theology, or political ideology but scientific fact known for decades. Based on the dictionary definition of person—a person is “a human being, esp. as distinguished from a thing or lower animal.” |
Hence, the proposed human life amendment that defines the unborn child as a “person” is inarguably based on science. The US Supreme Court’s central premise of Roe v. Wade 1973—that the word person did not have any prenatal application--was not based on science and was wrongly decided. The Court conceded that if the “personhood” of the unborn child is established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Over 50 million slaughtered unborn children later, the time is over-ripe for facing the reality of abortion, admitting we made a grave mistake, and overturning Roe v. Wade. Based logically on the rights of those already born, the unborn’s legal right to life should supersede the mother’s right to alleviate difficult circumstances. For persons already born, the right to life supersedes other rights. For example, our laws regarding vehicular homicide are based on the right to life of a victim of a DUI motor vehicle accident superseding the right of the perpetrator to recklessly drink alcohol and drive. For another example, the right to life of an abusive husband legally supersedes the right of the battered wife to kill him even though he might deserve it, unless her life is directly endangered. The “right to privacy,” used by Supreme Courts to shoot down anti-abortion legislation, is not based on our US constitution and is illogical and unprecedented since based on the right to privacy superseding the right to destroy human life. Unless redefined, the right to privacy legally supports child-porn, child molestation and other forms of domestic abuse, starvation and other abuse of animals, etc.
|