After Notre Dame: No ‘abortion rights’ only Human Rights

CHESAPEAKE (Catholic Online) - I cannot listen to that phrase any longer, “abortion rights”, without responding. I just watched Norah O'Donnell on MSNBC characterize President Obama’s opposition to the fundamental human right, the Right to Life, as being a position which supports what she called “abortion rights.” She then proceeded to give a lame analysis of the reasons so many oppose his being honored with a “Doctor of Law” by the University of Notre Dame this weekend.

The claim of a “right” to abort an innocent child is heinous enough when it is described as a woman’s “Right to Choose” an abortion. Yet, that is the current state of the positive law in America since the horrendous decisions in Roe and Doe. Women can choose to take the life of our first neighbors, the ones who live where we all once lived, in the womb. That “choice”, which is always and everywhere wrong because it is the taking of innocent human life, is currently protected by the Police Power of the State.

Abortion is the only example of taking innocent human life which is protected by the Police Power of the State. It has been given a special status as some sort of "super right" in the American culture these days! The current approach is no different than recognizing a so called “right” to kill three week old babies - if the Supreme Court said it was OK. Abortion is simply feticide in a new language intended to make what is evil sound acceptable. On top of this lie its’ advocates have also fashioned a “rights language” around it to make it even sound noble. It does not matter. Intentional abortion is evil, plain and simple.

The notion that this particular method of the intentional killing of an entire class of human beings should be called an “abortion right” is despicable. Only human persons can have “rights.” The shorthand phrase “abortion rights” has become the linguistic tool of some journalists who have themselves become tools of the abortion deception. This is evident in much of the reporting concerning the upcoming Commencement address and conferral of an honorary Doctor of Law degree by the University of Notre Dame upon President Barack Obama.

Opposition to giving a platform at a Catholic University to the most anti-Right to Life President in modern history is rooted in that President’s denial of the first right, the Right to Life, and the first freedom, the freedom to be born. The Right to Life is revealed in the Natural Law and confirmed by Medical Science. It is also therefore binding on all men and women, not just "religious" people. Children in the womb are our first neighbors and it is always wrong to kill our neighbors. We all know it and simply pretend otherwise. This President who campaigned on our being our brother/sister’s keepers has a serious blind spot!

We surgically operate regularly on our first neighbors in the womb. We then allow them to continue to grow in their first home and join us healthier upon their birth. We know that they are members of our human family. Our 4D sonogram technology has made it possible to take baby’s first picture now much younger - and how we marvel at the image of those little babies. When one of these little ones dies due to a “miscarriage” we all say that the grieving woman “lost her baby.” When one of those little ones dies due to surgical dismemberment, chemical weapons or suction some say that intentional killing was the exercise of a “right.” We all know the truth.

Yes, the truth concerning the dignity of every human person from conception to natural death is also taught without equivocation by the teaching office of the Catholic Church. It is also confirmed in Revelation. The Catholics who try to deny this infallibly proclaimed teaching of the Church that every procured abortion is the intentional taking of an innocent human life are either poorly catechized, lying, or completely deceived.

Worse yet are those who try to sweep it all away as being some sort of “religious” position, thereby somehow implying it cannot be “imposed” in the naked public square. The Scriptures and the teaching office of the Catholic Church oppose the taking of the lives of born children, adults, and old people as well. Every murder is wrong! So is all of that also a “religious” position as well? Should we discard those prohibitions in the positive law as well?

The prohibition against the intentional taking of any human life unless it is done in an act of self defense is the very ground upon which our claims to being a civilized society must rest. Every procured abortion is the taking of innocent human life. So why are children in the womb being treated differently than one year old children? There is no difference in any honest moral analysis. There should be no difference in the positive law.

The entire body of teaching referred to as Catholic Social Doctrine rests upon this recognition of the ...

I would argue that it's a good bet that God does not want innocent people placed at risk and in harms way. To allow murderers, rapists, and other types of violent criminals to roam our streets is appalling, deplorable, and disgraceful. And so, I believe in Capital punishment and I'm convinced that God does too. I don't pretend to know the mind of God but I honestly believe that He is not as forgiving as most people would like to believe. Violent criminals have killed innocent people while in prison. These animals must be executed in order to eliminate the RISK of re-offending. And, I'm comfortable with my belief that God concurs.

A government that fails to protect its citizens by placing them at risk and in harms way is grossly negligent and morally corrupt. A nation that fails as miserably as America does at protecting its citizens can hardly be considered a great nation.

Revenge is NOT the issue nor should it be. The real issue is the RISK criminals pose to every law abiding member of society. Is the release of many child rapists yearly worth risking the life of just one child? Are your loved ones worth that risk? Do you actually think that those responsible for releasing criminals would continue doing so if harsh consequences were mandated making them personally liable and accountable in the event the freed criminal re-offends? Of course not! Why? Because they wouldn’t want to accept responsibility and be held accountable should released convicts re-offend! How’s that for reasonable doubt???

An innocent unborn child is hardly a criminal and certainly doesn't deserve to die at the hands of evil and cruel abortionists. Even hardcore criminals receive better treatment! No decent citizen, in their righteous might, should tolerate a morally misguided and corrupt government that has and continues to freely, arrogantly, and brazenly choose to do the wrong thing. The heinous manner in which late term infants are butchered is evidence enough of an evil worshipping society. I absolutely refuse to support a morally repugnant government that believes that it’s a woman's constitutional right to choose and to decide whether or not her unborn child lives or dies. How dare pro choice politicians continue to abuse and spin the US Constitution in such a despicable manner merely to satisfy their grossly misguided constituents (e.g., Planned Parenthood) and/or their own self serving interests. It is the routine abuse of freedom and rights that must end as it has no place in a civilized free society.

You say let's compromise with abortionists??? Are you out of your mind??? Why should pro lifers or the greater good compromise or strike a deal with something that is as intrinsically evil as abortion??? Attempting to compromise or find common ground with evil or abortionists is flat out wrong. The good should never grant concessions to or compromise with evil. There is no common ground between good and evil as the two are mutually exclusive. Moreover, compromise is merely a cover-up or a band-aid as the problem still exists. The idea is to eradicate evil; not cover it up via some compromising band-aid approach.

Having children means responsibility and, as such, should be a privilege and not a right. Anything as precious as conceiving children should be reserved only for responsible people and not those that are irresponsible and have clearly demonstrated a consistent pattern of behaviors inappropriate to the rearing of children.

I'm disgusted with an increasingly permissive vile society that is consumed with "my rights this and my rights that" or irrational and flawed arguments advanced by permissive liberals as shallow as “it’s a woman’s body and she should have the right to choose” or “an unborn fetus isn’t human or completely developed”. Freedom and rights are grossly abused in America and that must stop! What so many fail to recognize is that with every freedom or right, there corresponds responsibility and accountability.

It is painfully evident that pro choice supporters refuse to acknowledge the truth as evidenced by their blatant and willful disregard for something as precious as an unborn child. What about the child’s rights? Have the pro choice advocates no shame? Is there no longer any distinction between right and wrong? There are some RIGHTS that need to be EARNED and having children is one of them! If only the responsible were allowed to conceive children, then abortion would be a non-issue.

Sadly, America is collapsing under the weight of its own sins of ignorance and liberal permissiveness and frivolous spending isn’t going to garner an ounce of absolution. What America needs is discipline and a return to moral principles. America's continued inability to engage in responsible freedom of choice is beyond all reasonable comprehension.

I can only lower my head in shame each and every time I hear some politician say “God Bless America”. Why should He? America is becoming increasingly evil and has done an outstanding job of removing Him from every public building, including schools. What is so great about a nation that dismisses God and deems fit to butcher children or allows vicious criminals to roam its streets placing good citizens at risk and in harms way all in the name of freedom and rights?

John P. Clark | 9/13/2009

| Politics