A US politician thinks that the right to murder anyone who gets in your way to a successful career and lifestyle is “sacred ground”. Well, OK, she did not come out and say that in so many words of course, but that effectively was the implication of her incredible statement made yesterday.
I refer to Texas State Senator Wendy Davis and her ongoing defence of late term abortion. She believes it is “sacred ground” because it gives women “liberty” to choose their future. Yep, killing babies frees you up to live the life you want – so it is fully justified.
Here is how one news item covered the story: “Abortion is ‘sacred ground,’ and defending late-term abortion is a necessary component of ‘liberty,’ according to Texas State Senator Wendy Davis. The pink-sneakered Democrat, whose 11-hour filibuster delaying the passage of a 20-week abortion ban made her a heroine of the Left, said during a press conference in Washington, D.C. today that she may run for governor of Texas in 2014, or seek re-election to her own seat.
“In an attempt to paint herself as a political moderate striking a conciliatory tone with the Republicans who dominate Texas politics, David said, ‘I will seek common ground, because we all must. But sometimes you have to take a stand on sacred ground.’
“The phrase echoed House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who told a reporter asking about late-term abortion limits, ‘As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this. I don’t think it should have anything to do with politics’….
“Davis closed today’s event by saying her defense of late-term abortion stemmed from her love of ‘liberty, the freedom to choose what your future will hold.’ That phrase, too, seemed to be borrowed from Judge Wickham Corwin, who stands accused of sexually harassing a court reporter. He ruled that a North Dakota law outlawing the off-use of misoprostol to induce an abortion violates the right to ‘liberty’ and the ‘pursuit of happiness’.”
So you see, according to Davis, we must have legal baby-killing so that women can be free to pursue whatever they like, be it a career, or a lifestyle path, or whatever makes them happy. Her reasoning seems to be this: whatever stands in my way and blocks my freedom to do what I want is wrong, and therefore I should have the right to even kill others to ensure there are no infringements to my liberty.
Indeed, let’s just extend the logic of her thinking here. I am about to get an advancement in my career path at work, but there is one other person standing in my way. She might get that promotion instead of me. But nothing should impede my freedom, so let’s just call murder “sacred ground”.
If I bump her off, that is my right, because we sure don’t want anyone standing in the way of where I want to go and what I want to do. That is effectively the argument Davis is making with abortion: it is needed to preserve my freedom, my choices, and my happiness.
Plenty of other scenarios could be included here, and fully justified as well by her stunted reasoning. I am running late for an important appointment, and a slow-moving old lady is crossing the street in front of me. She is preventing me from getting to this key meeting, so I have the right, indeed the “sacred ground,” to step on the accelerator, run her over, and enjoy my liberty.
Or my two born children are costing me heaps of time and money. I can’t have the freedom I really want, the lavish lifestyle, the nice vacations, and my personal happiness. I am tied down with these two burdensome kids. My liberty is greatly curtailed with these pesky kids around. Thus I have the sacred right to kill them, so that my freedom can be fully maximised.
Now most folks would find it quite hard to swallow these three scenarios. But I fail to see how they are so radically different from what the pro-death Senator is demanding. She is saying quite clearly and boldly that it is a sacred right and duty to be able to kill unborn children if they are going to interfere with my liberty, happiness and choices.
In all four cases other people are seen as hindrances and blockages to my freedom of choice, and the ability to choose my own future. So if I can justify killing the unborn for this reason, then why not the born? The same dodgy rationale stands behind all four cases.
My personal liberty and ability to choose trumps the rights of others to live. It is sacred ground in fact. If this is the best the pro-abortion brigade can come up with in pushing their agenda, then they are on very slippery ground indeed. But we already know that.
For these folks the ‘fundamental human right’ to be able to kill one’s own children is all that matters. It is a holy obligation and sacred ground. No wonder it is so very difficult to reason with and debate a pro-deather. With such diabolical presuppositions as this, they are not easily going to be rationally persuaded to see some common sense here.
But for those who are not so set in this deadly worldview, we must keep on trying to share truth and morality with them. Some will come around. Some will see the light. And that means less babies being killed. And that is worth all the trouble and grief we might have to undergo here.