Life vs. Liberty: Do The Unborn Deserve Constitutional Protection? When Does Life Actually Begin?

October 13, 2016

 

 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

The famous words stated in our great nation's Declaration of Independence.

 

Are we actually all created equal, though?  What are the unalienable rights that all men are to receive?  Does the unalienable right to life supersede another's right to liberty and happiness?  How do these rights relate to one another and which is primary?

 

These are the questions our nation will answer when they visit the polls in November.  They will answer the questions as they vote for candidates who will appoint perhaps hundreds of judges over the next 4 years.

 

HRC Does Not Believe in Constitutional Protection for the Unborn

 

Interviewed by Chuck Todd on MSNBC News, Hillary Clinton my not have spoken to the moment that life begins.  However, she did profess her belief that unborn humans do not have Constitutional rights.  Here is the transcript from MSNBC's website (the bold and underlines are mine and my comments are enumerated below according to the number in brackets).  I include this portion of the interview in it's entirety so that you can see the context.

 

CHUCK TODD:  

When or if--

 

HILLARY CLINTON: 

So I've had the same position for many years.

 

CHUCK TODD:

When, or if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?

 

HILLARY CLINTON:

Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn't have constitutional rights. [1] Now, that doesn't mean that we don't do everything we possibly can, in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.

 

It doesn't mean that you don't do everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations. But it does not include sacrificing the woman's right to make decisions. [2] And I think that's an important distinction, that under Roe v. Wade we've had enshrined under our Constitution.

 

CHUCK TODD:

You had said you think there is room for some restrictions. So is it fair to say that women don't always have a full right to choose?

 

HILLARY CLINTON:

 

Well, under Roe v. Wade that is the law. And as I said, I support the reasoning and the outcome in Roe v. Wade. [3] So in the third trimester of pregnancy, there is room for looking at the life and the health of the mother. Now, most people, not all Republicans, not all conservatives even agree with the life of the mother. But most do.

 

Where the distinction comes in is the health of the mother. [4] And when you have candidates running for president who say that there should be no exceptions, not for rape, not for incest, not for health, then I think you've gotten pretty extreme. And my view has always been this is a choice. It is not a mandate.

 

You know, I have traveled all over the world. I have seen what happens when governments make these decisions, whether it was forced sterilization, forced abortion in China, or force childbearing in communist Romania. So I don't think that we should be allowing the government to make decisions that really properly belong to the individual.

 

The entire transcript is located here

 

[1] HRC defers the answer of this question to "the law".  On the face of her comments it appears as though HRC is not actually answering this question from her personal position, but rather stating what "the law" grants to unborn people in regard to Constitutional protection.  Who can fault her if this is the position of "the law"?  This must not be her position, huh??? Oh, ok.  "The law" does not give unborn persons Constitutional protection. Then she states, "The unborn person has no rights."  This is the statement she made.

 

[2] HRC skirts the line in order to play all necessary angles on this question.  She mentions that she wants to provide obligatory health care to a mother who chooses to carry her baby to full time and give life, but that this is not a right the unborn possesses that would supersede the the choice of the mother to terminate the life of the child. 

 

[3] Here is where HRC's first comment [1] is truly fleshed out for us.  So what "law" is it that removes Constitutional protection from the unborn?  It's the case law established by Roe v. Wade.  Here HRC unequivocally states that THIS (Roe v. Wade) "is the law" then vows allegiance to this "law" once again as she did in the second presidential debate.

 

[4] And finally, we discuss "restrictions," a topic all right leaning voters want to hear.  And hear it many of them do.  The problem is they do not hear what restrictions to which HRC holds.  You think this is referring to restrictions on trimester limits, or restrictions on abortion in the case of gender selection, perhaps.  Maybe she is referring to restrictions on babies who were born but managed to survive the attempt to end their lives, or restriction to protect an unborn baby when she just might have some sort of abnormality.  

 

NO!  She is not referring to any of these restrictions.  She is referring to restrictions in regard to the health of the mother.  Keep in mind, from a conservative the terminology used in regard to the health of the mother is not "restriction" but "exception."  HRC tries to lump right-to-life conservatives in with her on this point by throwing the term "exception" out there.  Some may buy into this.  However, the debate on the right is whether or not n abortion should have an exception when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

 

HRC, on the other hand, states "in the third trimester of pregnancy, there is room for looking at the life and health of the mother."  This should send red flags and alarm to all who love the Constitution.  What she is saying is that there could be room to restrict abortion, or refuse the procedure, to women in the third trimester when the mother's health could be at risk for having the procedure.

 

So when does life begin?

 

If Constitutional protections are not afforded to the unborn, then by default, they are not human, with unalienable rights as the Declaration of Independence asserts and the Constitution provides.  Therefore there is no conflict between life and liberty for those who wish to sleep at night.

 

However, the TRUTH of the matter is that LIFE BEGINS BEFORE CONCEPTION.

 

Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.

 

Psalm 139:16 (ESV)

 

God knit each one of us together with a plan and a calling.  He established our days before we ever saw them.  His plan includes us before we took our first breath.  God is omniscient and knew us before we came to be and loved us before we were conceived.  We were, in fact, endowed by our Creator with the right to experience His plan and purpose.

 

Contending for the Unborn

 

This fall, when you and I cast our ballots, we will not just be voting for a candidate. We will be voting FOR or AGAINST the Constitutional protection of the least of these.

 

 

We will be exercising our influence to either 1) provide for the protection of the unborn for years to come in the court rooms across our nation, or 2) we will waste our voice and vote by choosing to "prove a point", or 3) perhaps we may even complacently provide for the further provision of the invasion on the womb of the unborn.

 

Unalienable rights?  Life must come before liberty.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

RECENT POSTS

RSS Feed

January 19, 2013

Please reload

CATEGORIES

Please reload

ARCHIVE POSTS

Please reload

  • Grey Instagram Icon

CONTACT:

© 2016