September 29, 2008

Freedom Of Speech And Abortion

First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Have you ever been in a small-group setting where someone mentions their pro-choice opinion on the abortion issue? Then once you or a fellow pro-lifer starts to question their views, they say that they don't want to discuss it or some other response to squelch the debate. This occurs from small group settings to large pro-life exhibits. For example, recently 18 pro-lifers were arrested in Maryland for just standing on the side of the road holding pro-life signs. They were basically arrested for trumped-up charges and later released.

It's very ironic that often it is difficult to have a pro-life display exhibited on college campuses. College professors and administrators preach free speech, tolerance, and diversity but only when it pertains to something they agree with. They usually have very little tolerance for a pro-life group displaying its freedom of speech rights, even though the group is following all the rules for displays set by the administration. The response is sometimes similar from the students who have been indoctrinated by those same professors and administrators. This is a typical reaction of many liberals in our society. If someone questions them, then that person is to be dismissed and their opinions not worthy of respect. With many social topics, including abortion, the liberal side does not want to deal with the logic of the issue. If you oppose their view, you should not be heard; not because of specifics of the claim you made, but only because you oppose their view.

How does a pro-lifer respond to being stifled in such a manner? Verbally fight back with a calm demeanor, and put them on the spot. Ask them if they believe in free speech? In tolerance? In diversity? Of course, they should respond yes to all. Then you agree and state that you believe in free speech for all, tolerance for differing points of view, and a desire to listen to a diversity of opinions. Then offer them the chance to state their opinion as long as you can state yours.

If you are discussing a campus or community exhibit, then other questions could be asked. If they disagree with the display of graphic photos of abortion, then ask them if they would have approved if Holocaust death-camp photos were displayed during World War II. If these photos were used to show the horror of the reality of these camps, then maybe something could have been done to stop them. On countless occasions The New York Times and news magazines have printed photos of alleged torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Were those appropriate to show? Obviously, there are many examples that can be used to prove your point.

The bottom line is that the pro-lifer's view should not take a back seat to any contrary opinion just because the other person does not want to hear it. In conclusion, I believe many liberals in our society would like to change the First Amendment to read something like this:

"Religion should never be established, endorsed or even mentioned by the government or any employee thereof; there shall be no restrictions on the practicing of a religion unless that religion espouses moral values of right and wrong. There should be no restrictions of freedom of speech, unless it differs from what we, the progressives, deem is correct. Freedom of the press should not be abridged unless it is a threat to what we, the progressives, deem is the appropriate view. People may peaceably assemble to reveal the atrocities committed by Republicans, Conservatives, or Christians. Everyone that we, the progressives, approve of have a right to petition the Government for redress of grievances."

September 20, 2008

Abortion: Front And Center In This Election

Several events have occurred in the last couple of months that have made the abortion issue one of the prominent topics in the campaigns of both parties. This congruence of events should keep the abortion topic on the front burner until the election.

First of all, there couldn't have been a better display of the differences in the two candidates then when they were asked at the Saddleback Forum about when human rights begin. John McCain stated that life begins at conception, while Barack Obama gave some rambling incoherent answer which he finally said he couldn't answer because it would be above his pay grade.

Barack Obama's view of abortion takes the issue to a whole new level. With his refusal to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as an Illinois State Senator, it displays to the world that he is not only 100% pro-abortion, but if a baby survives an abortion, it should be left to die. Obama has tried to dispute his own vote, but the truth is there for all to see.

Another event that brought abortion to the forefront was the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's vice presidential running mate. This selection has pro-abortion groups fuming for two reasons. Since she's an adamant pro-life woman, it is something they just can't comprehend. It seems they believe every woman should be for women's rights, which, of course, to them means abortion on demand. Also, her decision not to abort her child with Down Syndrome has put the liberals in this country in a perplexing position. Those who believe in abortion usually agree that it can be used to destroy an unborn baby with a disability, and now the whole world can see that Palin and her family love and cherish this baby.

It seems that nearly every day there are abortion comments and stories on the news channels and talk radio from either side of the aisle. For instance, they reported the story of an interview posted on the political Web site Politico with South Carolina's Democratic Chairwoman Carol Fowler. She said Republican John McCain picked a running mate "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion." Ads are now running about Gianna Jessen's remarkable story about living through a failed abortion - something Barack Obama was opposed to. If the Republicans keep hammering home Obama's view on abortion, it can be a crucial reason that the undecided or moderates voters will choose McCain.

It is obvious, but not always stated, that abortion has an excellent chance to be the one issue that voters can't ignore in the upcoming election. This gives the pro-lifer an incredible opportunity to discuss abortion with people who rarely ever think about the issue. In the next 40 days there will be increasing dialogue at work, school, or just in social interactions about the issues of this election. The abortion topic can be easily worked into the conversation without people thinking you're trying to ram your views down their throats. Since the mainstream media has virtually ignored Obama's view on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, the vast majority of Americans know little or nothing about it. Now is the time to educate them on this and other pro-life views.

Then the shift can be made to what people personally believe about abortion. From what I have heard lately from some, they believe abortion is wrong, but we shouldn't restrict someone from being able to have one. Or in the case of Barack Obama and other politicians, they state that everyone agrees that we need to have a reduction in abortions, but still there should be a right to choose to have one. The logical responses could be, "Why do you think it's wrong, and why should we have less abortions? So you are personally against killing of babies, but for killing of babies if someone else does it? So you are against bank robbery, murder, rape, but it's fine if someone else does it."

I believe the abortion issue in this election will continue to take a front and center position like no other time in our history. Thus, pro-lifers have a tremendous opportunity to explain to their fellow citizens the truth about abortion.

September 12, 2008

50 Million Dead - No Monument

In America we are very good at honoring people and events, no matter if they have had a positive or negative impact on our country. It's very commendable to have museums, memorials, and special holidays for these occurrences. We have several monuments for our founding fathers and other Americans that have helped shape America. Every September 11 we hold memorial events for the nearly 3,000 killed in the terrorists attacks. America has a very powerful tribute to the 58,000 killed in the Vietnam War with the Wall in Washington, D.C. and other memorials throughout the United States. The World War II Memorial is now built in Washington D.C. to honor those who served, plus the 417,000 Americans killed in the war. We have Holocaust museums in many communities that display the horrors of this evil that killed approximately six million Jews.

What do we have for the approximately 50 million babies killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade became law in 1973? NOTHING. Why? I see a few reasons for this. So many people have their views shaped by the mainstream media which, of course, never even has run one story about the horror of abortion. On the rare occasion they do run any story about the subject, it almost always displays the pro-life view in a bad light. So for quite a few Americans, it's the old adage "out of sight, out of mind." Many still have the preconceived notion that if the press isn't covering it, then it must not be newsworthy.

Another reason is that many do not see the fetus as an unborn human, or they just don't want to make the effort to analyze what is being killed in an abortion. Also, since it is the law of the land, many don't think it's even a necessary topic of discussion. That is why it is so important to spread the word about the evil of abortion, whether the recipient cares about the subject or not. There has to be a starting point for them where at least they begin thinking about abortion, discussing it, or investigating the issue. Displaying visual images, from ultrasounds to graphic pictures of aborted babies, along with reasoned dialogue have been proven to be very effective. We must have our society as a whole confront the question: What are we killing?

When the American people hear the word "Holocaust" they immediately think of the millions killed and the photos that they have seen of this horror. We must have a goal that someday people will have a similar response when they hear the word "abortion." There must be an automatic negative response concerning the millions of babies killed and the view that this evil will never happen again. Then maybe we will have a monument honoring them.

September 6, 2008

Pro-Life Persuasion - A Synopsis

The main focus of all discussions should be “What is the unborn?” Pro-choicers often will skirt around that issue with several different reasons for abortion. They will often say: It’s my choice. The birth will interfere with school or work. It’s just a blob of tissue or clump of cells. The child will be disabled. The mother is a drug addict. The baby will be born in an abusive environment or in poverty. The woman was raped. The health of the mother is in danger.

The premise behind almost all reasons for abortion is that the baby is not a human or that it doesn’t have the value that a born person has. There are two ways of handling most arguments. The first is the SLED test. The letters in SLED stand for Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency.