I often get the question regarding the sanctity of life, and marriage, "well why do you want to impose your views on others?" This post is written to explain some of these false premises that are often peddled by the left, and how "impose" is a gross misapplication of the definition. While no expert, I think I understand enough of what Rick Santorum is seeking, and you will hopefully see why he has the clearest vision and is the best choice for the country.
Here is the situation we have going on today in America. 1st of all, let's tackle the "Life" vs "Choice" arguments:
"Roe v. Wade" was decided by 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices. The presumption here is that this case settled the woman i.e. "female" right to choose to terminate her pregnancy i.e. "life". Let's explore this in a bit more detail.
Since "Roe v. Wade", technology gave us a deep understanding of what pregnancy i.e. "life" is defined as. We now know that upon the moment of conception, we essentially have an entirely new individual (person?) with its own unique DNA.
Great! Now let's ask them how they feel about whether they want to be aborted or not. (See how this is no longer as simple an understanding as it used to be?) if this new individual is a female, doesn't this essentially contradict the ruling? Where is her "right to choose"?
DEFINITION 1: "PERSONS"
The Constitution uses the term "persons" to define each of us. When the Constitution was written, there was a primitive understanding of pregnancy and all of its various complexities. Certainly, we must assume, had our forefathers known, the incredible level of detail that comes with conception, they would have expanded the definition of "persons" so it would not be left to the COURTS TO DECIDE, i.e. "Roe v Wade".
We are committing gross negligence to our country's future generations here, not to mention the spirit of the Constitution, by leaving this incredibly complex issue to SCOTUS who themselves are as archaic as the forefather's understanding of conception!
Rick Santorum is sounding the alarm bells with this issue. If we allow the Courts to decide when we're defined as a "person" upon conception, then we're also allowing the Courts to decide when we are a "person" upon near death too!
I think we can all agree that's not what we want. Rick Santorum isn't necessarily saying "Roe v Wade" was wrong. He's saying based upon new understanding of conception, IT'S OUTDATED, and we need to have a National Forum and discussion to debate, at what point does the Constitution define us as a "person"? This needs standardization by the Constitution, not tyrannical Kangaroo Courts making grossly inconsistent rulings.
DEFINITION 2: "MARRIAGE"
This one is trickier, but I'll do my very best to explain it.
Simply put, the purpose of marriage thru the ages (time immemorial) has been to bear & raise children, aka "nuclear family". Whether you are a religious person or not, no one can argue that we're designed to be connected as one man, one woman. This is also known to be described as NATURAL LAW. Any other relationship is social experimentation and therefore non-natural.
Marriage is not just a contractual relationship between people so good hair trial lawyers like John Edwards can swoop in like vultures to suck us dry upon divorce. To the majority of Americans, it's a form of religious expression that should be recognized under the 1st Amendment. In traditional Judeo-Christian upbringing, marriage brings with it sacred responsibilities that far and away exceed the minimalist file-clerk-at-the-county-seat window view. Attempting to redefine marriage is a form of hostility, marginalization towards Judeo-Christian beliefs for the sake of satisfying political opponents.
There is a very easy alternative solution for this. Allow Civil Unions at the State level. If your State wants to recognize Civil Unions, by all means, pay the County Clerk $60, take your union certificate and be sure you know a good divorce attorney (never let it be said I'm not pro-Union!)
Moving on...
As Rick Santorum has pointed out, using a Brookings Institute (a liberal think tank!) study as a reference, the overwhelmingly, statistically-evidenced best opportunity for success a child has is being part of a nuclear family. We must encourage parents to get married (or stay married). Orphans should be placed w/ married couples as much as is allowable.
Now of course the next question is "why not let gays adopt?" in my personal view, every American child deserves the best opportunity to be nurtured for success. The child deserves a natural upbringing, not a social experiment.
Before you bludgeon me with labels, you have to understand that our Country needs to have a National Forum of discussion on this too. Do we have a Federal level responsibility to insure a minimum opportunity of success for each child or not? Do we allow States to decide the minimum level of parentless child placement?
Can gay couples achieve such an upbringing with a high rate of success over long historical periods? If not, should we require the couple have a strong mentor of the opposite sex actively involved in the child's life to insure this occur? Do we address an item like this at the Federal level, or do we let the States handle it? I don't have those answers, what I have is more questions.
This is why we need legal framework. It's not an imposition, the idea is quite the opposite, to prevent rogue Judicial verdicts & rulings from taking a child's best available opportunity for achieving their own success. Leaving the Courts to decide this is a Dereliction of our Patriotic Duty!
DEFINITION 3: PARENTAL RIGHTS
While many of us have been delving into how much we can avoid upsetting our liberal friends, those of us that have avoided this are seeing a disturbing trend at the local & state levels. Parental rights are being destroyed at alarming rate, mostly in our court system. Case Law for parents is now just a form of Governmental intimidation & fear. If your kid is fat, the State can take him/her from you. This is tyrannical in every sense of the word. Good parents shouldn't have to be afraid of feeding their children a diet not approved by the DCS Gestapo, or worse, the WH imposed diet.
The Court system is deciding "parental rights" in America right now. We need to resolve this at the Federal level as well. Parental Rights needs to be a universally accepted concept, not wild suppositions by incompetent Courts at the local level that keep adding to the "Case Law" meme. Federal Law or Constitutional Amendment needs to provide framework so State/Local Governments don't exceed their authority on parental rights, lest we continue ruining the lives of American children that need reliable parental nurturing, not Judicial neglect and tyranny.
Future generations are depending on us, so we can depend on them. It is they who will eventually care for our needs as we grow older. Keep neglecting them, butchering them, abusing them, and they won't be around for us when we need them most. God Bless America!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment