Jakubczyk on Life

Lifesite story echoes Obama's abortion commitment

In the June 10, 2008 story on LifesiteNews.com, Peter J. Smith documents the extensive pro-abortion rhetoric of Barack Obama.

Smith's article notes the extensive history of Obama's connections with Planned Parenthood and further cites to Citizen Link for additional supporting material. Just as this author has confirmed the extreme pro-abortion position of the Democratic nominees for president, so Smith points out and links to various stories confirming the point.

I mention this again in light of the confusion being sown by certain elements within both Catholic and evangelical circles that Obama's position on the life and social issues may not be so far from both Catholic and evangelical principles. This is such a deception that it must be challenged at every opportunity.

From a scientific perspective, Obama does not know his biology. Indeed for being so bright, he cannot hold a candle to what any student in middle school knows about the "facts of life." Even my four year old knows that what is inthe womb is a baby and not some "potential life." Obama insults the intelligence of the American people when he offers up such dribble.

From a religious perspective, all life comes from God. He is the author of all life. All human life is sacred. Whether from the Old or New Testaments, the message is clear. God wants to be in relationship with human kind. He made us in His own image and likeness. He calls us to "choose life" and to care for these the "least of our brethren." He "knit us in secret in our mothers' wombs" and we are "fearfully and wonderfully made."

From a constitutional perspective ( pay attention - Supreme court judges), the 5th amendment and the 14th amendment guarantee persons the right to life, liberty and property. Persons are and must by definition include human beings. Unborn children are human beings. Therefore unborn persons are guaranteed under the constitution the right to life. It does not matter whether the framers intended this result. They did intend to protect the rights of human beings under the law as defined by the law and nature. The grave and terrible injustice done to African slaves brought to the colonies, whose descendants grew up in slavery does not negate the reality that they were human beings and ought to have been and then later were protected by law. Injustice in the past and the failure to protect does not erase the reality of the person's nature or the fact that the law is called to reflect the natural order and therefore must protect the human person. The innocent human being even has more of a claim upon the duty of society and of government to protect the weak ad the vulnerable. Thus it is that if the rights of one innocent person can be stripped away by government, then all rights are at risk. If the person cannot hold onto his or her right to life, then all other rights are in jeopardy.

From a common sense perspective. We all know the mother carries a baby within her womb. Who are we trying to fool? Why are we afraid? Is it that important that we have ______, that we would destroy the life of a baby? Is nine months so long? Can we as a society help the women and not turn our collective backs on her? Think of the option - adoption - a win win win for everyone. Mother wins - she does not have to care for the baby for the rest of her life. Couple wins - they get to share their love with a child. Baby wins. he or she is not killed .He or she gets to live and be loved.

Sounds like a better way to me.

Too bad Obama and the Democrats don't think so.

posted by Jakubczyk on Life @ 7:19 PM