By Luke C. Gabello, Co-Founder of The Conservative Comeback
Malori Fuchs, Editor
When I am asked my position on abortion, I reply, “I am pro-life.” That was a sufficient answer until recently. It is now common to hear, “No, you are anti-choice.” Really? Many pro-choice supporters go even further by rationalizing being pro-choice as separate from being pro-abortion. The argument is phrased something similar to, “No, I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. I am not saying I am in favor of abortion, I am saying that I believe it is up to the woman to decide whether or not to have an abortion.” This argument is much more clever and far more dangerous.
The problem with being “pro-choice” is that it is still “pro-abortion” wrapped in intellectual drivel. One cannot simply support abortion as a choice without co-conspiring to support the legalized means required to kill an innocent child. Pro-choice proponents argue that choice in this matter is a basic freedom and a right. Examine some of our true freedoms and rights and the fallacy of the “pro-choice” position is exposed. The Conservative Comeback is a big proponent of freedom: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the freedom to bear arms for self defense. We are not, however, in favor of the right for the government to impose a religion on all citizens, for libel and slander, or for using firearms to commit crimes. There are legitimate and illegitimate uses of our rights as defined in the Constitution of the United States. The fundamental problem illustrated is that no right is allowed to infringe on the right of another. To do so jeopardizes all of our rights and freedoms.
The pro-choice position garners support from an extremely flawed constitutional interpretation: the supposed belief that there is “a right to privacy.” The word “privacy” does not even exist in the Constitution of the United States. The word “privilege” and “deprived” appear most frequently in the Constitution of the United States when searching for “priv”. Neither the word “privilege” nor “deprived” suppose privacy in any sense that would advocate murder. It again goes back to the fundamentally flawed thinking that an unborn child is not a human. This is the justification by which most individuals hold their pro-choice beliefs. Therefore, I argue that an unborn human being is blatantly deprived of their natural choice to live in favor of a supposed right to privacy.
A unique human being is created at the moment of conception. The moment of conception to the moment birth is an inseparable part of the human experience. Here is the evidence for all the naysayers: one cannot bypass conception and suddenly become a human. If we as a nation believe it is wrong to harm the innocent, then abortion on all levels must cease immediately. As President Ronald Reagan so eloquently stated, “Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.”
Friday, March 12, 2010
Resolution Against Planned Parenthood
Please see my latest post at Pro Life Unity, which is about the resolution against Planned Parenthood that I proposed and passed at our precinct convention. On Saturday, I will be arguing for the resolution to make it to the senatorial district convention level.
Friday, March 5, 2010
"Kill the Bill, Not the Babies"
Please read my latest column at Pro Life Unity, regarding the inclusion of abortion funding in H.R. 3590 (Senate health care bill):
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
You never know when you might be called...
..to stand up for your beliefs. Today at work, I actually had a few encounters where I could share my faith and moral beliefs. The first one made the biggest impression on me.
Background on my job first: I'm the administrative assistant for a children's music school, so in addition to performing my secretarial duties, I also get to talk to parents and their children.
I was talking to a certain dad who has talked to me about my political views before. I guess I had mentioned to him that I was thinking about taking some "for fun" college classes, and he asked if I was, now that it's a new semester. I said, no I'm not (it costs money!), and so he asked me which classes I wanted to take. I replied "Government and public speaking."
"Oh, so you might run for public office?"
"Haha, no, I don't think so, I don't think I could do that. I am helping with some political campaigns in my area, though...calling people and stuff."
He then went on to ask, "So who do you support in the governor's race: Perry or Kay Bailey?"
I told him that I'm supporting Rick Perry, and then he asked why.
"Well, my big thing is that Perry is more pro-life than Kay. She has done some pro-life things, but she's not as solid as Perry. I trust his record more."
That explanation naturally led to a discussion about abortion. "So," he said, "how can you justify being against abortion...I mean, it's a religious conviction." (I think he's someone that I would label as "moderate.")
"No, not totally," I answered. "It partly is religious, but there's also scientific fact."
"Yeah, but the egg and the sperm [separately]...they aren't life."
"Yes, true. But if you look in any embryology text book, it will tell you that life begins at fertilization. I actually did that once...I got an embryology text book from the Johns Hopkins medical library, and there it was!"
"Okay, yes, it's potential life."
"No, it IS a life, because everything is there. All it needs is nourishment, development, and growth. But it's totally there."
"Hmm....I never thought of it that way....that everything is already there."
The fact that a light bulb turned on in this man's head is thrilling for me! "I never thought of it that way." How awesome! He actually understood! Whether he'll totally embrace it is another matter, but at least it made him think and understand the issue in a new way.
So that's a cool thing that happened today! I just hope that I don't get in trouble for talking about my political and pro-life views at work. Let's just say that there was an issue with my pro-life views even before I was officially hired...but hey, at least I haven't gotten called out for having the sticker "Abortion kills babies and wounds women" on my car! If it does get around that I'm supposedly"proselytizing", I can honestly say that I didn't start the subject...he asked, and I've gotta stand up and defend my beliefs. You never know when a seed might be planted or a heart touched!
Background on my job first: I'm the administrative assistant for a children's music school, so in addition to performing my secretarial duties, I also get to talk to parents and their children.
I was talking to a certain dad who has talked to me about my political views before. I guess I had mentioned to him that I was thinking about taking some "for fun" college classes, and he asked if I was, now that it's a new semester. I said, no I'm not (it costs money!), and so he asked me which classes I wanted to take. I replied "Government and public speaking."
"Oh, so you might run for public office?"
"Haha, no, I don't think so, I don't think I could do that. I am helping with some political campaigns in my area, though...calling people and stuff."
He then went on to ask, "So who do you support in the governor's race: Perry or Kay Bailey?"
I told him that I'm supporting Rick Perry, and then he asked why.
"Well, my big thing is that Perry is more pro-life than Kay. She has done some pro-life things, but she's not as solid as Perry. I trust his record more."
That explanation naturally led to a discussion about abortion. "So," he said, "how can you justify being against abortion...I mean, it's a religious conviction." (I think he's someone that I would label as "moderate.")
"No, not totally," I answered. "It partly is religious, but there's also scientific fact."
"Yeah, but the egg and the sperm [separately]...they aren't life."
"Yes, true. But if you look in any embryology text book, it will tell you that life begins at fertilization. I actually did that once...I got an embryology text book from the Johns Hopkins medical library, and there it was!"
"Okay, yes, it's potential life."
"No, it IS a life, because everything is there. All it needs is nourishment, development, and growth. But it's totally there."
"Hmm....I never thought of it that way....that everything is already there."
The fact that a light bulb turned on in this man's head is thrilling for me! "I never thought of it that way." How awesome! He actually understood! Whether he'll totally embrace it is another matter, but at least it made him think and understand the issue in a new way.
So that's a cool thing that happened today! I just hope that I don't get in trouble for talking about my political and pro-life views at work. Let's just say that there was an issue with my pro-life views even before I was officially hired...but hey, at least I haven't gotten called out for having the sticker "Abortion kills babies and wounds women" on my car! If it does get around that I'm supposedly"proselytizing", I can honestly say that I didn't start the subject...he asked, and I've gotta stand up and defend my beliefs. You never know when a seed might be planted or a heart touched!
Thursday, December 10, 2009
My Opinion of the Tea Party
Here is my latest column on Pro-Life Unity, regarding the Tea Party movement. Please read and comment! :)
http://www.prolifeunity.com/index.php/news_group/article/my_opinion_of_the_tea_party/
http://www.prolifeunity.com/index.php/news_group/article/my_opinion_of_the_tea_party/
Thursday, November 19, 2009
What exactly does he mean?
I watched part of an interview that Fox News reporter Major Garrett just had with President Obama. Here is an excerpt:
Major Garrett: Will you sign legislation on health care that includes the Stupak language?
Barack Obama: You know, I think there is a balance to be achieved that is consistent with the Hyde Amendment…I believe in the basic idea that federal dollars shouldn’t pay for abortions, but I also think that we shouldn’t restrict women’s choices.
Garrett: Yes or no – does the Stupak language strike that balance?
Obama: Not yet.
Okay, Mr. President. The Stupak Amendment is already a compromise. It allows abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. What exactly does he mean by achieving a "balance" between the two sides? He has repeatedly said that he does not believe in the government paying for abortion...but yet, he wants to satiate the pro-choice crowd and repeats the mantra of a "woman's choice." He can't have it both ways! How can we not fund abortions, but at the same time, not restrict a woman's choice to choose an abortion? It's absolutely incompatible.
I wish that our president would just come out and call a "woman's right to choose" what it is. Mr. President, when you use that phrase, what you are essentially saying is, "I believe that a woman has a right to kill her baby if she finds it convenient and moral in her eyes." If one puts it in those terms, it comes to light how indefensible the pro-choice stance is. Also, if you watch the interview on Foxnews.com, notice how Mr. Obama is slightly hesitant when talking about abortion. He always does this! Is it perhaps because in the deepest part of his heart, he knows that abortion is wrong, that he is supporting murder? I always try to remember the president when I pray in the morning, that he and his administration will be converted. I know it is a very tall order, but with God, nothing is impossible!
Major Garrett: Will you sign legislation on health care that includes the Stupak language?
Barack Obama: You know, I think there is a balance to be achieved that is consistent with the Hyde Amendment…I believe in the basic idea that federal dollars shouldn’t pay for abortions, but I also think that we shouldn’t restrict women’s choices.
Garrett: Yes or no – does the Stupak language strike that balance?
Obama: Not yet.
Okay, Mr. President. The Stupak Amendment is already a compromise. It allows abortion in the cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. What exactly does he mean by achieving a "balance" between the two sides? He has repeatedly said that he does not believe in the government paying for abortion...but yet, he wants to satiate the pro-choice crowd and repeats the mantra of a "woman's choice." He can't have it both ways! How can we not fund abortions, but at the same time, not restrict a woman's choice to choose an abortion? It's absolutely incompatible.
I wish that our president would just come out and call a "woman's right to choose" what it is. Mr. President, when you use that phrase, what you are essentially saying is, "I believe that a woman has a right to kill her baby if she finds it convenient and moral in her eyes." If one puts it in those terms, it comes to light how indefensible the pro-choice stance is. Also, if you watch the interview on Foxnews.com, notice how Mr. Obama is slightly hesitant when talking about abortion. He always does this! Is it perhaps because in the deepest part of his heart, he knows that abortion is wrong, that he is supporting murder? I always try to remember the president when I pray in the morning, that he and his administration will be converted. I know it is a very tall order, but with God, nothing is impossible!
Thursday, November 5, 2009
GOP Alternative to PelosiCare
Please watch this live streaming video, going until midnight Eastern/11 p.m. Central tonight!
Compliments of the GOP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
