Democrats' Contempt for the Sanctity of Life

Ed Buck, a prominent Democrat donor and fundraiser, has been charged with battery, administering illegal drugs, and operating a drug house.  The charges paint a disturbing picture of this wealthy scion of liberal politics.  At this time, two men have been identified as having died and a third having been seriously harmed, but prosecutors are said to have found hundreds of photographs "of men in compromising positions" who may have been lured to Buck's home with the promise of money, shelter, and drugs.

This case raises many questions, not just concerning the several felonies with which Buck has been charged, but about the morality of this and other prominent liberals.  On what basis could any human being engage in sexual conduct with "hundreds" of unfortunate human beings, using them like playthings and then casting them aside?  What does such conduct suggest about the capacity of some individuals to use others for their personal pleasure, regardless of the dangerous consequences involved?  

Certainly, conservatives are far from perfect, but at least conservatives do not flaunt their iniquities.  Conservatives as individuals possess all the imperfections of other men, but they still ascribe to an ideal of goodness and virtue.  The same cannot be said for liberals, who believe that they should rack up as much pleasure as possible in this world because they are sure there's no life after death.

For liberals, what happens in the Oval Office stays in the Oval Office.  Many Democrats thought Bill Clinton was just being Clinton and that there was nothing especially immoral about conducting affairs with aides, state employees, actresses, and nursing home managers.  Was this because they did not appreciate the sanctity of those who served as mere diversion for our 42nd president?

Just what is so appealing to liberals about promiscuity, anyway?  Is it just sex, or is there a special satisfaction in transgressing traditional moral codes?  Is it the idea that one is "bigger" than the law?  Or is it that liberals believe that the rules no longer apply?  Is it beneath them to believe in marital fidelity and lifetime devotion to one's spouse?  Liberals think they are too sophisticated for this kid of trust, just as they think telling the truth is Boy Scout stuff and election promises are made to be broken.  "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."  Yeah, right.

Conservatives are different.  We at least hold up the ideal of devotion, honesty, and truth-telling, and though we're not perfect, we try to be.  That's especially the case when it involves the sanctity of life.  Conservatives defend the unborn, defend their families, and defend their God-given liberties.  Conservatives know that all of God's creation is sacred, and it is that knowledge that makes them act with restraint and care.  That is the essence of conservatism.

The essence of liberalism, as I see it, is a lack of restraint rooted in egotism and self.  The Warren presidential campaign is a perfect example.  If elected, Elizabeth Warren will, according to her own admission, attempt to closely regulate all large businesses, eliminate fracking and the jobs that go with it, provide Medicare for All, dictate health care decisions (including practically unlimited abortion "rights"), eliminate capital punishment, raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, provide free college, cancel student debt, eliminate the Electoral College, ban assault weapons, open our borders, legalize marijuana, and significantly cut the defense budget.

Warren's policies show her to be an extremist driven by ideology rather than concern for the individuals whom she would tax, endanger, disenfranchise, and tyrannize with regulation and social mandates.  Where is her concern for the individuals whose lives she would alter so radically with her sweeping reforms?  Those lives are sacred, their right to prosper and save is sacred, and their right to safety and security is sacred.  Warren does not seem to have thought much about the dangers of unrestrained immigration or the fact that a weakened national defense will put all Americans at risk.  What is she describing is tyranny, plain and simple.

The most obvious example of liberal denial of the sanctity of life, of course, is liberals' position on abortion.  For any person who truly believes in the sanctity of life, abortion must be repugnant.  One point six million abortions, terminating approximately one quarter of all pregnancies, are performed every year in the U.S.  At this rate, that would amount to 80 million abortions over the past 50 years.  Imagine the loss of those beautiful human souls.

Or are they beautiful?  Liberals do not believe so.  They tell us that the earth has become overpopulated.  It is "the earth" that matters and not human beings.  Or they say the mothers of those unborn children would not be able to care for them and that the children would just become a burden on the State.  The "burden on the State" is more important than the unborn child.

What you will never hear from a liberal is the idea that every child, born and unborn, is sacred.  A child is worth that burden and worth the stress he purportedly places on "the earth."  A time is coming when America will wish that it had those 80 million souls to defend it and help it prosper.  That ability to contribute to society and pursue economic opportunity, and to fight if necessary to defend one's home, is another side of what makes every child sacred.  Children are sacred because of their capacity for goodness, beauty, and life, but also because they will grow into adults who take responsibility for themselves and for their neighbors.   

Would any conservative vote to end the life of 80 million human beings?

I believe that every human being is God's creation and that everyone is born with the potential to contribute and achieve.  Our Founders believed in limited government because they too believed in human potential, and they feared the tyranny of authoritarianism.  They had reason to fear, having lived under the yoke of British colonial rule.

It is no accident that those who seek a vast expansion of government power today also oppose the sanctity of life.  A free people engaged in productive endeavors will never vote for a socialist who will suppress their freedom.  What today's tyrants fear above all is a public that believes in the sanctity of life and is willing to stand up for it.

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).

Ed Buck, a prominent Democrat donor and fundraiser, has been charged with battery, administering illegal drugs, and operating a drug house.  The charges paint a disturbing picture of this wealthy scion of liberal politics.  At this time, two men have been identified as having died and a third having been seriously harmed, but prosecutors are said to have found hundreds of photographs "of men in compromising positions" who may have been lured to Buck's home with the promise of money, shelter, and drugs.

This case raises many questions, not just concerning the several felonies with which Buck has been charged, but about the morality of this and other prominent liberals.  On what basis could any human being engage in sexual conduct with "hundreds" of unfortunate human beings, using them like playthings and then casting them aside?  What does such conduct suggest about the capacity of some individuals to use others for their personal pleasure, regardless of the dangerous consequences involved?  

Certainly, conservatives are far from perfect, but at least conservatives do not flaunt their iniquities.  Conservatives as individuals possess all the imperfections of other men, but they still ascribe to an ideal of goodness and virtue.  The same cannot be said for liberals, who believe that they should rack up as much pleasure as possible in this world because they are sure there's no life after death.

For liberals, what happens in the Oval Office stays in the Oval Office.  Many Democrats thought Bill Clinton was just being Clinton and that there was nothing especially immoral about conducting affairs with aides, state employees, actresses, and nursing home managers.  Was this because they did not appreciate the sanctity of those who served as mere diversion for our 42nd president?

Just what is so appealing to liberals about promiscuity, anyway?  Is it just sex, or is there a special satisfaction in transgressing traditional moral codes?  Is it the idea that one is "bigger" than the law?  Or is it that liberals believe that the rules no longer apply?  Is it beneath them to believe in marital fidelity and lifetime devotion to one's spouse?  Liberals think they are too sophisticated for this kid of trust, just as they think telling the truth is Boy Scout stuff and election promises are made to be broken.  "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."  Yeah, right.

Conservatives are different.  We at least hold up the ideal of devotion, honesty, and truth-telling, and though we're not perfect, we try to be.  That's especially the case when it involves the sanctity of life.  Conservatives defend the unborn, defend their families, and defend their God-given liberties.  Conservatives know that all of God's creation is sacred, and it is that knowledge that makes them act with restraint and care.  That is the essence of conservatism.

The essence of liberalism, as I see it, is a lack of restraint rooted in egotism and self.  The Warren presidential campaign is a perfect example.  If elected, Elizabeth Warren will, according to her own admission, attempt to closely regulate all large businesses, eliminate fracking and the jobs that go with it, provide Medicare for All, dictate health care decisions (including practically unlimited abortion "rights"), eliminate capital punishment, raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, provide free college, cancel student debt, eliminate the Electoral College, ban assault weapons, open our borders, legalize marijuana, and significantly cut the defense budget.

Warren's policies show her to be an extremist driven by ideology rather than concern for the individuals whom she would tax, endanger, disenfranchise, and tyrannize with regulation and social mandates.  Where is her concern for the individuals whose lives she would alter so radically with her sweeping reforms?  Those lives are sacred, their right to prosper and save is sacred, and their right to safety and security is sacred.  Warren does not seem to have thought much about the dangers of unrestrained immigration or the fact that a weakened national defense will put all Americans at risk.  What is she describing is tyranny, plain and simple.

The most obvious example of liberal denial of the sanctity of life, of course, is liberals' position on abortion.  For any person who truly believes in the sanctity of life, abortion must be repugnant.  One point six million abortions, terminating approximately one quarter of all pregnancies, are performed every year in the U.S.  At this rate, that would amount to 80 million abortions over the past 50 years.  Imagine the loss of those beautiful human souls.

Or are they beautiful?  Liberals do not believe so.  They tell us that the earth has become overpopulated.  It is "the earth" that matters and not human beings.  Or they say the mothers of those unborn children would not be able to care for them and that the children would just become a burden on the State.  The "burden on the State" is more important than the unborn child.

What you will never hear from a liberal is the idea that every child, born and unborn, is sacred.  A child is worth that burden and worth the stress he purportedly places on "the earth."  A time is coming when America will wish that it had those 80 million souls to defend it and help it prosper.  That ability to contribute to society and pursue economic opportunity, and to fight if necessary to defend one's home, is another side of what makes every child sacred.  Children are sacred because of their capacity for goodness, beauty, and life, but also because they will grow into adults who take responsibility for themselves and for their neighbors.   

Would any conservative vote to end the life of 80 million human beings?

I believe that every human being is God's creation and that everyone is born with the potential to contribute and achieve.  Our Founders believed in limited government because they too believed in human potential, and they feared the tyranny of authoritarianism.  They had reason to fear, having lived under the yoke of British colonial rule.

It is no accident that those who seek a vast expansion of government power today also oppose the sanctity of life.  A free people engaged in productive endeavors will never vote for a socialist who will suppress their freedom.  What today's tyrants fear above all is a public that believes in the sanctity of life and is willing to stand up for it.

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination (2011).