I haven't been updating this blog much. Since the Legislature only meets for 140 days every 2 years (some people think it needs to meet for 2 days every 140 years), and since Texas is not a ballot initiative state (meaning that any and all attempts to amend the Texas Constitution have to originate in the Legislature), there hasn't been much to report.
About the only thing I can say is that I am running for State Representative in my district. I should be on the November ballot as a Libertarian, running against the incumbent establishment Republican. If I somehow win, I would be the first Libertarian to win a seat in the Texas Legislature. I can then officially propose personhood bills.
I haven't done much campaigning yet since our district lines are still in flux thanks to a court challenge to the redistricting that the Legislature did in the last legislative session.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Caylee Anthony
The news just hit that Casey Anthony was found not guilty of the murder of her two-year-old daughter, Caylee Anthony. I admit that I really didn't keep up with the trial. I didn't see or hear any evidence in the case, so I am in no position to cast judgment on the jurors because of their verdict. But the comments on this article (over fourteen thousand of them now, and the story is just a few hours old) show a deep level of outrage over the perception that Casey Anthony murdered her daughter so that she could continue her comfortable, partying lifestyle, and that the system is allowing her to get away with this.
But I have to ask, where is the outrage for all the other dead children? Women by the thousands have hired professional killers to rip their babies apart, all so these women can continue in their comfortable, partying lifestyles. The murder of a human being is the murder of a human being, regardless of that human being's stage of development. Our government's primary task is to protect and ensure the inalienable right to life of each and every person. If we aren't outraged by the thousands of murders going on around us every day and by our government's disregard of such murders, why should we be so outraged by this one?
But I have to ask, where is the outrage for all the other dead children? Women by the thousands have hired professional killers to rip their babies apart, all so these women can continue in their comfortable, partying lifestyles. The murder of a human being is the murder of a human being, regardless of that human being's stage of development. Our government's primary task is to protect and ensure the inalienable right to life of each and every person. If we aren't outraged by the thousands of murders going on around us every day and by our government's disregard of such murders, why should we be so outraged by this one?
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Life, Liberty, and Property
I am now a card-carrying Libertarian. Over the past few months, as I have given real and open thought to issues regarding the proper role of government, I have grown increasingly frustrated with the positions of the Republican Party, not the least of which is its "pro-life" stance. It is only natural that I seek alternatives. But why would someone who is as against legalized abortion as I am turn to the Libertarian Party?
The one and only reason for government to exist is to protect the right to life, liberty, and property of each individual. (To see what I mean by property, read the highly, highly recommended The Law by Frederic Bastiat.) This principle of government limited to the protection of basic individual rights can be found in our country's founding document, the Declaration of Independence: "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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The only political philosophy that tries to uphold this ideal without saying that government should take care of all our basic needs (or even worse, our every need) is libertarianism.
Of course, the Libertarian Party is not perfect. The party website (www.lp.org) proclaims that it is the Party of Principle. And yet, section 1.4 of the 2010 party platform says:
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
What kind of principle is that? Government should be kept out of the matter? The protection of the right to life of all persons is the number one function of government. One cannot hold property if one does not have liberty, and one cannot have liberty without life. The protection of the right to life is the highest priority of any government. And government must do this for all persons. We cannot allow government to exclude any class of human beings from this protection. The government of our forefathers did this to black slaves; the government of Nazi Germany did this to the Jews and other groups. If the Libertarian Party had existed in the United States in 1840, would it have stated that slavery is a sensitive issue and that government should stay out of it? I'm fairly sure that most Libertarian Party members today would say no, and yet slavery was just as divisive an issue then as abortion is now.
Speaking very generally, people come to the Libertarian Party after thinking logically about issues involving what makes a good and proper government (it sure isn't because they want to be on the winning side of elections). So thinking logically, every human being has an origin. Every person has a birthdate, but each person existed before his or her birth, living and growing within the womb. The only logical point of origin for an individual human being is the moment when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg. Before that moment, a sperm cell is just a sperm cell. An egg is just an egg. But when the two join, an individual human being is created with all the requisite chromosomes and DNA. Therefore, if each individual human being has the inalienable right to life (inalienable meaning inherent or from God), then he or she obtains that right at this moment of origin. It is government's primary responsibility to protect that right from that moment forward in the same way it protects that right for all of us (by creating laws against murder, etc.).
Government must extend that responsibility to all human beings, regardless of the circumstances of a person's origin. Conventional pro-lifers and/or Republicans who claim to be against abortion except in cases of rape or incest (i.e. our current governor Rick Perry) display a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue and give the pro-abortion lobby more ammunition against the "pro-life" movement than it otherwise would have. When someone says that he is against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, maternal health, etc., one really says that he doesn't want people who engage in sexual activity outside of marriage to escape the "punishment" of having a baby, etc. Those who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest didn't choose to engage in sex outside of marriage; therefore, they can go ahead and get rid of their baby. It is this attitude that led to Obama, the most pro-abortion president this country has ever had, saying that he didn't want his daughter punished with a baby. This faulty "pro-life" thinking serves to keep dehumanizing the unborn child, which is the ultimate goal of the pro-abortion lobby and the abortion industry.
Now, government has no place in the de facto regulation of the sexual behavior of consenting adults. People should have the liberty to engage in personal relationships and to choose their own sexual practices without government intervention. If people are not free to make bad choices, then people are not really free. This liberty also means that people must take responsibility for their actions, especially if those actions result in the creation of another human being (and by responsibility, I mean that they don't murder their baby). But the child who is conceived as a result of a rape is still a human being with the same inalienable right to life as any other person.
To be truly pro-life is to respect the personhood of every human being, from the point of fertilization to natural death. Two factors sparked my journey to libertarianism: 1) our current government has greatly overstepped its bounds by not only not protecting the right to liberty and property but by trampling on it itself via excessive taxation and redistribution; and 2) my dissatisfaction with the Republican Party's non-personhood approach to the abortion issue. It is my hope that more Libertarians will see the logic behind personhood and work toward a government that protects the right to life, liberty, and property for all human beings and limits itself to that.
The one and only reason for government to exist is to protect the right to life, liberty, and property of each individual. (To see what I mean by property, read the highly, highly recommended The Law by Frederic Bastiat.) This principle of government limited to the protection of basic individual rights can be found in our country's founding document, the Declaration of Independence: "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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The only political philosophy that tries to uphold this ideal without saying that government should take care of all our basic needs (or even worse, our every need) is libertarianism.
Of course, the Libertarian Party is not perfect. The party website (www.lp.org) proclaims that it is the Party of Principle. And yet, section 1.4 of the 2010 party platform says:
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
What kind of principle is that? Government should be kept out of the matter? The protection of the right to life of all persons is the number one function of government. One cannot hold property if one does not have liberty, and one cannot have liberty without life. The protection of the right to life is the highest priority of any government. And government must do this for all persons. We cannot allow government to exclude any class of human beings from this protection. The government of our forefathers did this to black slaves; the government of Nazi Germany did this to the Jews and other groups. If the Libertarian Party had existed in the United States in 1840, would it have stated that slavery is a sensitive issue and that government should stay out of it? I'm fairly sure that most Libertarian Party members today would say no, and yet slavery was just as divisive an issue then as abortion is now.
Speaking very generally, people come to the Libertarian Party after thinking logically about issues involving what makes a good and proper government (it sure isn't because they want to be on the winning side of elections). So thinking logically, every human being has an origin. Every person has a birthdate, but each person existed before his or her birth, living and growing within the womb. The only logical point of origin for an individual human being is the moment when a sperm cell fertilizes an egg. Before that moment, a sperm cell is just a sperm cell. An egg is just an egg. But when the two join, an individual human being is created with all the requisite chromosomes and DNA. Therefore, if each individual human being has the inalienable right to life (inalienable meaning inherent or from God), then he or she obtains that right at this moment of origin. It is government's primary responsibility to protect that right from that moment forward in the same way it protects that right for all of us (by creating laws against murder, etc.).
Government must extend that responsibility to all human beings, regardless of the circumstances of a person's origin. Conventional pro-lifers and/or Republicans who claim to be against abortion except in cases of rape or incest (i.e. our current governor Rick Perry) display a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue and give the pro-abortion lobby more ammunition against the "pro-life" movement than it otherwise would have. When someone says that he is against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, maternal health, etc., one really says that he doesn't want people who engage in sexual activity outside of marriage to escape the "punishment" of having a baby, etc. Those who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest didn't choose to engage in sex outside of marriage; therefore, they can go ahead and get rid of their baby. It is this attitude that led to Obama, the most pro-abortion president this country has ever had, saying that he didn't want his daughter punished with a baby. This faulty "pro-life" thinking serves to keep dehumanizing the unborn child, which is the ultimate goal of the pro-abortion lobby and the abortion industry.
Now, government has no place in the de facto regulation of the sexual behavior of consenting adults. People should have the liberty to engage in personal relationships and to choose their own sexual practices without government intervention. If people are not free to make bad choices, then people are not really free. This liberty also means that people must take responsibility for their actions, especially if those actions result in the creation of another human being (and by responsibility, I mean that they don't murder their baby). But the child who is conceived as a result of a rape is still a human being with the same inalienable right to life as any other person.
To be truly pro-life is to respect the personhood of every human being, from the point of fertilization to natural death. Two factors sparked my journey to libertarianism: 1) our current government has greatly overstepped its bounds by not only not protecting the right to liberty and property but by trampling on it itself via excessive taxation and redistribution; and 2) my dissatisfaction with the Republican Party's non-personhood approach to the abortion issue. It is my hope that more Libertarians will see the logic behind personhood and work toward a government that protects the right to life, liberty, and property for all human beings and limits itself to that.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Pro-Life Bills?
Rick Perry has designated the passage of a sonogram bill as a "legislative emergency." As a result, the Republian-controlled Texas Legislature will rush through legislation that will require abortionists to show ultrasound images to pregnant women who seek abortions. Seemingly everyone is hailing this as a "pro-life" achievement. The reasoning is that more women will decide not to murder their children once they see the ultrasound.
My wife and I have two children, and we had ultrasounds done during each pregnancy. Honestly, to me, the images on the screen looked more like those of an old black and white television after all the stations had gone off the air than those of a baby. I fail to see how looking at these snowy sonograms would convince any woman of the humanity of her preborn child, especially after she has already bought into the lies spewed by the "pro-choice" propaganda machine.
The big problem with this legislation is that it further codifies abortion into law. We don't need more laws on abortion, we need fewer. In fact, we need to wipe out all abortion laws and simply define a person as a human being at every stage of development. The Texas Penal Code already defines a person in this way; it is the regulations on abortion, many of them passed as "pro-life bills," that keep abortion legal. Any bill that ends with some form of "and then you can kill the baby" should never be considered a pro-life bill.
The proper function of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of each individual human being. This protection should apply to EVERY human being, without regard to stage of development or any other factor (race, gender, etc.). To exclude any class of human beings from this protection is a failure of this principle of proper government.
When will Texas have a legislator who is principled enough to vote against any bill with specifies a legal condition under which one human being may kill another innocent human being? Do we allow parents to murder their teenage children after forcing them to look at baby pictures of those teenagers? Of course not. A person is a person at any stage of development, from embryo to infant to toddler to adolescent, etc. And yet, the powers that be consider this sonogram bill to be a pro-life bill. It is sad that legislators today care more about their one hundred percent pro-life voting record from right-to-life organizations or their endorsements from Texas Alliance for Life than they do about true principles. And what good are those ratings and endorsements when they come from organizations which are defined by 38 years of failure?
If I were a state legislator, I would vote against these current bills and propose one of my own. My bill would eliminate EVERY abortion law and regulation in Texas and would simply define a person as a human being at every stage of development. Abortion would then be treated as any other form of murder. If one would reject the myth that Roe v. Wade gave women a "constitutional right" to get an abortion and really read the majority opinion of the case, especially Footnote 54, one would see that personhood legislation would not violate any mandate of that decision.
It is time for all Texans, but especially our elected officials, to re-evaluate their own principles and to take a stand on those principles. Life is the most basic of rights, and it applies to all human beings. Government has no place in selecting which human beings deserve to have that right protected and which don't...
My wife and I have two children, and we had ultrasounds done during each pregnancy. Honestly, to me, the images on the screen looked more like those of an old black and white television after all the stations had gone off the air than those of a baby. I fail to see how looking at these snowy sonograms would convince any woman of the humanity of her preborn child, especially after she has already bought into the lies spewed by the "pro-choice" propaganda machine.
The big problem with this legislation is that it further codifies abortion into law. We don't need more laws on abortion, we need fewer. In fact, we need to wipe out all abortion laws and simply define a person as a human being at every stage of development. The Texas Penal Code already defines a person in this way; it is the regulations on abortion, many of them passed as "pro-life bills," that keep abortion legal. Any bill that ends with some form of "and then you can kill the baby" should never be considered a pro-life bill.
The proper function of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of each individual human being. This protection should apply to EVERY human being, without regard to stage of development or any other factor (race, gender, etc.). To exclude any class of human beings from this protection is a failure of this principle of proper government.
When will Texas have a legislator who is principled enough to vote against any bill with specifies a legal condition under which one human being may kill another innocent human being? Do we allow parents to murder their teenage children after forcing them to look at baby pictures of those teenagers? Of course not. A person is a person at any stage of development, from embryo to infant to toddler to adolescent, etc. And yet, the powers that be consider this sonogram bill to be a pro-life bill. It is sad that legislators today care more about their one hundred percent pro-life voting record from right-to-life organizations or their endorsements from Texas Alliance for Life than they do about true principles. And what good are those ratings and endorsements when they come from organizations which are defined by 38 years of failure?
If I were a state legislator, I would vote against these current bills and propose one of my own. My bill would eliminate EVERY abortion law and regulation in Texas and would simply define a person as a human being at every stage of development. Abortion would then be treated as any other form of murder. If one would reject the myth that Roe v. Wade gave women a "constitutional right" to get an abortion and really read the majority opinion of the case, especially Footnote 54, one would see that personhood legislation would not violate any mandate of that decision.
It is time for all Texans, but especially our elected officials, to re-evaluate their own principles and to take a stand on those principles. Life is the most basic of rights, and it applies to all human beings. Government has no place in selecting which human beings deserve to have that right protected and which don't...
Friday, December 31, 2010
2010
As I write this, the sun is setting for the final time on 2010. Personhood moved slowly forward this year. The ballot initiative in Colorado, Proposition 62, failed, but the number of yes votes increased significantly over the number of yes votes on a similar referendum in the 2008 election.
2011 will see another personhood amendment on the ballot in Mississippi, a state which has much more of a pro-life reputation than Colorado. Unfortunately, there is not a citizen ballot-initiative process here in Texas. Any constitutional amendment proposal must first come from the state legislature before appearing on our ballots.
The proper role of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of each individual person. It is not up to the government to exclude any group of human beings from that protection, no matter that group's stage of development, age, race, ethnicity, religion, or disability. It is the mission of this blog to convince voters and officials that ALL human beings possess the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Happy 2011!
2011 will see another personhood amendment on the ballot in Mississippi, a state which has much more of a pro-life reputation than Colorado. Unfortunately, there is not a citizen ballot-initiative process here in Texas. Any constitutional amendment proposal must first come from the state legislature before appearing on our ballots.
The proper role of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of each individual person. It is not up to the government to exclude any group of human beings from that protection, no matter that group's stage of development, age, race, ethnicity, religion, or disability. It is the mission of this blog to convince voters and officials that ALL human beings possess the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Happy 2011!
Friday, December 24, 2010
Christmas and Personhood
Looking back on this Christmas Eve morning, I realized that I started this blog exactly one year ago today. Throughout the past year, the frequency of blog posts varied, and that variation seemed to have a correlation to my level of disillusionment with the status quo in the pro-life movement.
From hearing the Christmas story this season, I am reminded that the first person on earth to recognize Jesus for who He was occurred when Jesus was still in the womb. And the person who recognized him was also still in the womb.
[39 ] In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, [40 ] and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. [41 ] And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, [42 ] and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! [43 ] And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? [44 ] For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. [45 ] And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”
(Luke 1:39-45 ESV)
It's a beautiful story, and it is one of the most cited among those in the Christian pro-life movement. The personhood of children in the womb is illustrated with great clarity. Why so many people in this movement compromise with those on the other side and advocate allowing abortions in cases of rape or incest still escapes me. If a child in the womb is a person, then it is murder to kill that person, regardless of the manner in which that person was conceived. There seems to be a tremendous lack of reasoning in the general pro-life movement, and I believe that it is one of the reasons why the "legal" abortion industry is flourishing today.
Another problem in the pro-life movement is this perception among the general public that it is strictly a Christian movement. Even though I am a Christian, I recognize that the pro-life position and the Christian faith need not be so intertwined. The purpose of this blog is not to win people over to Christ. I'll let more qualified ministers and theologians write blogs for that. My main purpose here is to convince visitors to this page that neither the "pro-choice" nor the "pro-life with exceptions for rape and incest" positions have any logical, legal, or moral foundation.
We are fast approaching the 38th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade court decision. The perceived pro-life party, the Republican Party, has seemed impotent to eliminate legal abortions. Instead, they push through bills which further codify abortion into law. Abortionists can now, by statute in many states (and soon in Texas), kill babies after showing the mothers of those babies an ultrasound.
I no longer consider myself a Republican. Lately, I have chosen to affiliate myself with the local Libertarian Party, not because they have a strong pro-life platform (they don't), but because a fundamental change in the philosophy of government is needed. I have become convinced that the Republican Party will never part with their old conventional ways, and that such change is more likely from a third party. And it just so happens that my views on economic issues and on the intervention of government into the lives of individuals fits quite nicely with the positions of the Libertarian Party.
I'll have future blog posts on libertarianism and personhood and why libertarians should embrace personhood coming soon in the new year. Until then, Merry Christmas!
From hearing the Christmas story this season, I am reminded that the first person on earth to recognize Jesus for who He was occurred when Jesus was still in the womb. And the person who recognized him was also still in the womb.
[39 ] In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, [40 ] and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. [41 ] And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, [42 ] and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! [43 ] And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? [44 ] For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. [45 ] And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”
(Luke 1:39-45 ESV)
It's a beautiful story, and it is one of the most cited among those in the Christian pro-life movement. The personhood of children in the womb is illustrated with great clarity. Why so many people in this movement compromise with those on the other side and advocate allowing abortions in cases of rape or incest still escapes me. If a child in the womb is a person, then it is murder to kill that person, regardless of the manner in which that person was conceived. There seems to be a tremendous lack of reasoning in the general pro-life movement, and I believe that it is one of the reasons why the "legal" abortion industry is flourishing today.
Another problem in the pro-life movement is this perception among the general public that it is strictly a Christian movement. Even though I am a Christian, I recognize that the pro-life position and the Christian faith need not be so intertwined. The purpose of this blog is not to win people over to Christ. I'll let more qualified ministers and theologians write blogs for that. My main purpose here is to convince visitors to this page that neither the "pro-choice" nor the "pro-life with exceptions for rape and incest" positions have any logical, legal, or moral foundation.
We are fast approaching the 38th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade court decision. The perceived pro-life party, the Republican Party, has seemed impotent to eliminate legal abortions. Instead, they push through bills which further codify abortion into law. Abortionists can now, by statute in many states (and soon in Texas), kill babies after showing the mothers of those babies an ultrasound.
I no longer consider myself a Republican. Lately, I have chosen to affiliate myself with the local Libertarian Party, not because they have a strong pro-life platform (they don't), but because a fundamental change in the philosophy of government is needed. I have become convinced that the Republican Party will never part with their old conventional ways, and that such change is more likely from a third party. And it just so happens that my views on economic issues and on the intervention of government into the lives of individuals fits quite nicely with the positions of the Libertarian Party.
I'll have future blog posts on libertarianism and personhood and why libertarians should embrace personhood coming soon in the new year. Until then, Merry Christmas!
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Post-election Report, Christianity, and Libertarians for Life
It has been way too long since my last entry in this blog. Life has been busy; October seemed to go by in a blur.
Since I am the Republican Party Precinct Chair for my voting precinct, I spent all day on Election Day at the polling place serving as Election Judge. I arrived at 5:45 AM to begin setting up voting booths and equipment (and I did this the morning after attending Game 5 of the World Series). The polls opened at 7:00 AM and closed at 7:00 PM. As Election Judge, I was required to stay at the polling place the entire day. Of course, we still had a line of about fifty people at 7:00 PM, so we didn't actually shut everything down until about 7:45. I delivered the ballots, equipment, and paperwork to the county election station at 9:30 PM. The whole day left me exhausted, and I didn't watch a single minute of TV election coverage that night.
But we all know what happened. Rick Perry was re-elected governor, and Republicans won a majority in the United States House of Representatives and greatly increased their majority in the Texas House. I have mixed feelings about all of this. On the one hand, the defeat of pro-abortion Democrats is always a good thing. On the other, Republicans haven't done much except give lip-service to real pro-life issues for many years. The resistance of the Republican Party establishment and of supposedly pro-life organizations like Texas Alliance for Life to the personhood issue is still substantial.
Some of the "pro-life" bills that newly-elected legislators have been filing are disappointing. The most common are bills which prohibit taxpayer funded abortion, a move toward nullifying parts of Obamacare. What these bills tell the abortionists is that it's OK to go on murdering babies just as long as they don't take public money for doing it. Why can't we elect legislators with the guts to really take a stand against unconstitutional federal action, especially action perpetrated by the US Supreme Court over the past several decades?
Since the election, the race for Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives has taken center stage. Joe Straus, Speaker for the last session of the Legislature, was elected to that post by eleven liberal Republicans and all of the House Democrats. Supposedly, the deal that Straus and his cohorts made with the Democrats included a stipulation that no "pro-life" bills would make it to the floor of the House.
I was listening to the Wells Report on the radio the other day, and Representative Leo Berman was on talking about the race for Speaker. I can't quote him verbatim, but he said something to the effect that he only votes for pro-life people because being pro-life indicates that the person believes in God. That statement got me thinking. Why is the pro-life movement perceived as an exclusively Christian one?
I am a Christian, and I love the Personhood USA organization. Personhood USA's message is that all human beings are persons, regardless of the stage of biological development, and should be recognized as persons by law. About the only criticism I have of Personhood USA is that they present personhood so closely tied to Christianity. According to the website, their mission is "to serve Jesus by being an Advocate for those who can not speak for themselves, the pre-born child." With a mission statement like that, those who are hostile to the Christian faith, for whatever reason, may not ever hear the philosophical and logical arguments in favor of personhood.
I've considered myself somewhat libertarian for a good many years now. In fact, I openly supported Kathie Glass, the Libertarian Party candidate for governor, over Rick Perry. The photo is of me and Ms. Glass.
I have never actually joined the Libertarian Party because of their horrible platform position on abortion. But it has been my view that government's only legitmate purpose was to protect each individual's right to life, liberty, and property. Beyond that, each individual should be free to live his or her life, provided that he or she does not infringe on others' rights to life, liberty, and property.
My libertarian leanings led me to the Libertarians for Life website. This organization makes purely philosophical and scientific arguments in favor of the recognition of preborn children as persons under the law.
To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:
1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.
Since I am the Republican Party Precinct Chair for my voting precinct, I spent all day on Election Day at the polling place serving as Election Judge. I arrived at 5:45 AM to begin setting up voting booths and equipment (and I did this the morning after attending Game 5 of the World Series). The polls opened at 7:00 AM and closed at 7:00 PM. As Election Judge, I was required to stay at the polling place the entire day. Of course, we still had a line of about fifty people at 7:00 PM, so we didn't actually shut everything down until about 7:45. I delivered the ballots, equipment, and paperwork to the county election station at 9:30 PM. The whole day left me exhausted, and I didn't watch a single minute of TV election coverage that night.
But we all know what happened. Rick Perry was re-elected governor, and Republicans won a majority in the United States House of Representatives and greatly increased their majority in the Texas House. I have mixed feelings about all of this. On the one hand, the defeat of pro-abortion Democrats is always a good thing. On the other, Republicans haven't done much except give lip-service to real pro-life issues for many years. The resistance of the Republican Party establishment and of supposedly pro-life organizations like Texas Alliance for Life to the personhood issue is still substantial.
Some of the "pro-life" bills that newly-elected legislators have been filing are disappointing. The most common are bills which prohibit taxpayer funded abortion, a move toward nullifying parts of Obamacare. What these bills tell the abortionists is that it's OK to go on murdering babies just as long as they don't take public money for doing it. Why can't we elect legislators with the guts to really take a stand against unconstitutional federal action, especially action perpetrated by the US Supreme Court over the past several decades?
Since the election, the race for Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives has taken center stage. Joe Straus, Speaker for the last session of the Legislature, was elected to that post by eleven liberal Republicans and all of the House Democrats. Supposedly, the deal that Straus and his cohorts made with the Democrats included a stipulation that no "pro-life" bills would make it to the floor of the House.
I was listening to the Wells Report on the radio the other day, and Representative Leo Berman was on talking about the race for Speaker. I can't quote him verbatim, but he said something to the effect that he only votes for pro-life people because being pro-life indicates that the person believes in God. That statement got me thinking. Why is the pro-life movement perceived as an exclusively Christian one?
I am a Christian, and I love the Personhood USA organization. Personhood USA's message is that all human beings are persons, regardless of the stage of biological development, and should be recognized as persons by law. About the only criticism I have of Personhood USA is that they present personhood so closely tied to Christianity. According to the website, their mission is "to serve Jesus by being an Advocate for those who can not speak for themselves, the pre-born child." With a mission statement like that, those who are hostile to the Christian faith, for whatever reason, may not ever hear the philosophical and logical arguments in favor of personhood.
I've considered myself somewhat libertarian for a good many years now. In fact, I openly supported Kathie Glass, the Libertarian Party candidate for governor, over Rick Perry. The photo is of me and Ms. Glass.
I have never actually joined the Libertarian Party because of their horrible platform position on abortion. But it has been my view that government's only legitmate purpose was to protect each individual's right to life, liberty, and property. Beyond that, each individual should be free to live his or her life, provided that he or she does not infringe on others' rights to life, liberty, and property.
My libertarian leanings led me to the Libertarians for Life website. This organization makes purely philosophical and scientific arguments in favor of the recognition of preborn children as persons under the law.
To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:
1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)