Aborting the Party of Lincoln
The last time America faced the government dehumanizing a class of human beings, the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, declared that the government does not have the right to deny any human being's inalienable rights.
Today, "moderate" Republicans are disagreeing with Lincoln, this time with a new class of people: the unborn.
Abortion is, like slavery, the government defining some members of the human race as not being persons whose rights are protected by the Constitution. Forget about religion -- we know that the unborn are members of the human race from the moment of conception from a purely scientific perspective. It's the DNA. Everyone reading this was once a fetus, just as he or she was once a newborn, a toddler, a child, and a teenager. A person by any other name would be as valuable.
Just as a black man is a human being endowed by God with inalienable rights whether he's called "black," "African-American," "negro," or even the N-word, the unborn are full-fledged members of the human race, even when they're called "fetuses."
If we say that it's okay to kill the unborn because of their age, then how can we object not just to "death panels," but to the forcible execution of those too old to make what the government feels is a sufficient contribution to society?
If we say it's okay to kill the unborn because of their dependency, then all of us who aren't survivalists could be marked for death. Who among us can truly say he lives without depending on anyone else? Even modern farmers depend on the people who manufacture tractors and advanced fertilizers. And, of course, the newly born are completely dependent on others, so objecting to infanticide would be useless -- note that already "ethicists" are making just that argument. On a note more bothersome to liberals, aren't those who spend their lives on the public dole just as dependent as the unborn? Yet who would say it would be okay to reduce the deficit by executing those who haven't supported themselves for years?
Abortion, therefore, is the ultimate repudiation of the conservative principle that the rights of individuals do not flow from the government. For if the government can declare some human beings to be non-persons due to age, or dependency, then all people's rights are at the mercy of the government, and no person of any race is free.
Legalized abortion is also a repudiation of the conservative belief that people should be responsible for their actions. Women don't get pregnant by accident; neither they nor their partners should be able to kill an innocent third party to avoid the consequences of their actions.
At this point, liberals will shout rape. But according to pro-abortion sources, only 1% of abortions are due to rape -- and less than two percent are due to rape, incest, or threat to the mother's life. Yet those same liberals will refuse to agree to outlaw abortion for reasons other than the hard cases. Supporting abortion in America today means supporting abortions of convenience, not necessity.
The reality is that abortion is legal in America for any reason at any time right up until the little girl's head leaves her mother's womb. It is the abortion advocates who are the extremists. Obama, for example, supports sex-selection abortion, late-term abortions, abortions because the unborn girl is differently abled, and abortions because the mother doesn't want to look bad in her swimsuit. Obama doesn't even say he wants abortion to be rare, as Bill Clinton did.
The vast majority -- 98% -- of abortions are done to avoid the consequences of people's willful actions. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have sympathy and compassion for women who are having an unplanned pregnancy, but it does mean that if the Republican Party decides that it's okay to kill an innocent person so long as by doing so, another person avoids being burdened, it will no longer be the party of Lincoln.
Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
This sentiment is equally applicable to those who endorse abortion -- all of whom always happen to be conveniently too old to be aborted.
Lincoln is revered not because he conformed to the basest morality to be found in order to be more "electable" but rather because he stood up for what every good man knew to be true even if they themselves failed to publicly endorse it.
Without the social issues, what will the Republican party have to offer America? Balanced budgets? We are facing a time when people are going to have to suffer as the spigots of government largess are closed, either voluntarily now or involuntarily eventually, as the people of Greece are learning. Does anyone think that if the only rallying cry of the Republican party is blood, sweat, and tears, they can win any election?
It is madness to think that by becoming Democrats except for fiscal policy, tax rates, and the amount of bread and circuses they promise to provide to the low-information voters, Republicans can win elections. It wasn't "moderate" Republicans who retook the House in 2010; it was a union of social and fiscal conservatives.
Even low-information voters can see who is tilting with the wind. Given a choice between a clear and forcefully articulated, albeit illogical and disproven, vision and a watered down and defensively presented, albeit correct and logical, vision, history has shown that victory will go to the confident.
If the Republican Party sells its soul in a devil's deal to supposedly win elections, it will soon expire due to the hemorrhaging of conservative voters and the never-ending attacks of the mainstream media. For even if Republicans repudiate their beliefs, they will never mollify the Molochs in the media who scream for the streets to run red with the figurative blood of Republicans. And voters will not respond to mere fiscal positions, as we've seen in the last election; it's not always the economy, stupid.
You can read more of Tom's rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious.