Friday, August 01, 2008

You Won't Believe This One

I recently came across a compelling pro-life statement written in 1977 for the National Right to Life Committee. See if you can guess from a few excerpts who the author was.

Here we go:

The question of "life" is The Question of the 20th century. Race and poverty are dimensions of the life question, but discussions about abortion have brought the issue into focus in a much sharper way.

How we will respect and understand the nature of life itself is the over-riding moral issue.

I was born out of wedlock (and against the advice that my mother received from her doctor) and therefore abortion is a personal issue for me.

There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of higher order than the right to life. I do not share that view. I believe that life is not private, but rather it is public and universal.

If one accepts the position that life is private, and therefore you have the right to do with it as you please, one must also accept the conclusion of that logic.
That was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned.

Another area that concerns me greatly, namely because I know how it has been used with regard to race, is the psycholinguistics involved in this whole issue of abortion. If something can be dehumanized through the rhetoric used to describe it, then the major battle has been won. Those advocates of taking life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder, they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that would imply something human. Rather they talk about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore can be justified.

What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person and what kind of a society will we have twenty years hence if life can be taken so casually?

It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth.

The author? Rev. Jesse Louis Jackson.

Click here for the entire article, and the commentary by the person who found the article in the files of the National Right to Life office.


John Lofton, Recovering Republican said...

The NRTLC is not pro-life since pro-life means pro-ALL unborn human life & the NRTLC has endorsed Bush and McCain who both think it should continue to be "legal" to murder innocent unborn babies in the womb if they are in the womb because rape/incest.

John Lofton, Editor

OmaSteak said...

Attempts to legislate morality are always doomed to failure unless they are backed by a totalitarian government willing to kill for enforcement. Are you celebrating the woman who was featured in the OWH not long ago with 13 kids, another on the way and at least one pregnant early teen daughter at home??? All she's doing is cranking out gangbangers and breeders on the public's dollars. Abortions were performed in hospitals long before Row v. Wade, it was just restricted to MD's wives, mistresses and their friends under the cover of "female problems" requiring a D&C. If pro-life advocates got everything they advocate, who's going to pay for and care for all those extra unwanted children? I know it's not PC to ask, but we're already getting taxed almost to the limit now.