Murder and the Sanctity of Life

I find it interesting that of all the reasons our founding fathers had to defend their dissension from the motherland, they started with the most basic of all rights: the right to live. It seems almost odd, considering that before the rebellion their lives weren't really at jeopardy. I think, perhaps, for the first time in a very long time our founding fathers came to the knowledge that there is something uniquely special simply about being alive, and that life itself qualifies one for certain, unalienable rights.

It is because we esteem life itself with such sanctity that we have decided that their need be no other qualification or requirement for an individual to have access to the privileges and and insurances of the Bill of Rights, or for that matter, all other civil laws that have come out those rights. It is then a testament to our founding fathers that the war they fought really wasn't about themselves, for they were willing to lay down their lives for the sake of ours.

So what is so special about life? Why have we fought so hard to provide equality to all men, no matter their race, gender, religion or any other distinguishing feature that may define them? Perhaps it is only in the loss of life that we truly come to appreciate its immeasurable value. One thing is certain: life is special. It creates meaning and purpose. It turns chaos into order. It allows for emotion and experience. It is the catalyst to all knowledge.

Here is my question: how can we, as a society, truly value the sanctity of life without also showing equal reverence and respect for the process that creates life? The answer is irrefutably and absolutely we can't. This blatant and gross contradiction is so glaring and obvious that it kills me to watch our society deny it. We have literally taken the miracle of procreation and have dragged it through the filthiest, most desecrating sewage thinkable. We trample it and reduce it to little more than instant gratification. How humiliating this must be to the men and women who gave uo everything to preserve the sanctity of life.

Perhaps the most foul and evil forms of this perversion is abortion. To deny any being the right to live is to destroy the very cause for which our founding fathers fought. I absolutely hate (and I don't say that lightly) the phrase "pro-choice." When discussing abortion, there should be no talk of any kind about choices or the right to choose. Abortion has absolutely nothing to do with choice. The choice was already made. Abortion has to do with consequences and the sanctity of life.

Equally frustrating is the discussion on the beginning of life. Why does this matter? If life is so special and important, then it shouldn't matter when it scientifically begins, what should matter is the process that makes it possible. To debate over the biological formation of a fetus completely skips the more important questions: why have we allowed the desecration of procreation to reach a point where such debate should ever be necessary? Why should there ever be any desire for any life to be terminated due to pure selfishness? How could this ever be acceptable?

Abortion for any reason other than rape, incest, or severe health risks to the mother or child, is pure, unadulterated murder. There is no logical way to distinguish the effects of killing a human being before or after birth. A life is the lost either way. The unfulfilled potential of either human being will never be known in this life. Each loss is equally tragic. Somehow, just because the fetus couldn't talk yet, or walk, or be seen or held, that makes it different? Of course not. I am convinced that we have to value the sanctity of life (and the miracle that makes it possible) more than this if we are to avoid the devastation that has come to so many societies before us.

What do you think?

Fouding Father quote of the day

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Decleration of Independance, July 4, 1776

Politicians and Politics

We saw a rather interesting debate as a country during this past presidential election. The two candidates clashed on almost every issue. The public saw plans presented, policies debated, and political philosophies disputed. But there was more than just that. There was a clash of character. The war hero vs. the Chicago politician. A man praised for his patriotism and integrity vs. a man questioned because of his associations and moral positioning. In a fairly literal sense, Americans had to ask themselves which was more important: the politician or the politics. Was it better to elect a good man or simply any man with good ideas?

Now, I am not saying Obama's ideas were or are good for the health of this country. But the polls show that on average, Americans think they are. The point is, America chose what it believes to be good politics over perhaps a truly worthy politician. I think that was a huge, terrible mistake. You don't think that's the case? Just think back to how venomously the media opposed any investigation on Obama's character. They refused to even raise questions about his past, his personal life, or his true nature and character. They just focused on his ideas, his plans, and all that change and hope rhetoric; all while downplaying John McCain's honor, integrity, and heroism. And worst of all, we let the media do it.

One thing has been clear in my incomplete study of our founding fathers. They worked so hard to design a political system with so many checks and balances just so that we could elect good, honorable men into office and let the system take care of the politics. They believed so deeply that this country had to be led by men full of integrity that they literally denied the president of more power than any other political system devised. They didn't want greed to take root in any public office and knew that the voice of the people would solve political issues.

Of course we need competent, smart, professional leaders. We need them to have the expertise that individually we may not possess. But we need them to be good men above anything else. We need them to be honest, selfless, and full of integrity. In reality, the President just doesn't have enough power to implement most his plans, ideas, or politics on his own. It was designed that way for a reason. The President does, however, have enough power to do terrible damage and bring disgrace to his office, our government, and this country.

So many people dismissed arguments against Obama if they had to do with his associations (both personal and professional), his deceit, and his social voting record (among other things) because none of those things were supposedly very important. I think time will tell a different tale. I think those things are of the greatest importance when it comes to putting together a government that actually cares about the people, gets the job done, and maintains an approval rating above 9%. Personally, I don't think we ever going to see real change until we decide that a good man is infinitely better than just a (supposed) good idea and start electing public officers accordingly.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

[H]onesty will be found on every experiment, to be the best and only true policy; let us then as a Nation be just.

George Washington, Circular letter to the States, June 14, 1783

Bailouts and Dinosaurs

One of the most detrimental interferences government can make in a capatilistic, free-market soiciety is that of proppoing up an industry or firm that is incapable of sustaining itself on its own. In such cases, everyone loses. No wealth is being created and debts are simply transferred from the firm to the government to the taxpayer, literally dragging everyone down. It is for this reason that some firms and some industries must fail.

Lately we have seen the big three automakers beg for bailouts from the government. (Never mind they flew to DC in their private, luxury jets.) They reason that their industry is vital to the economy of the country and that the collapse of their companies would deepen the recession and destroy America's ability to compete in the global auto industry.

The fundemental basis for their arguments assumes that there could never be new American automakers. This is preposterous. If anything, America needs new automakers. We need fresh faces with innovative solutions to the problems we face. We need american automakers who aren't tied to the inneficient traditions of the past.

Here is the thing: giving the automakers bailout money will only posptone the inevitable. It will reduce the incentive for them to make real changes. Even now, we aren't seeing clear plans with solid visions and redical innovations proposed by the big three. We need a paradigm shift and all we are seeing are some proposals for small adjustments to the status quo.

Mitt Romney wrote an excellent article about this topic. He listed three major changes that need to be made in the auto industry. First, they have to control their costs better. There needs to be a complete restructuring of labor agreements with the unions. If they can't compete with foreign costs stuctures, they will always be at a disadvantage. Second, they need new management. They need to purge the old ways of doing things and embrace a new vision. Finally, they need to set their sights on the long-term. No more fussying about quarterly earnings and short term gains, all decisions need to be made with eye on the future.

If the big three can't do this on their own, in my opinion, it is time for them to go extinct. The American auto industry is too important to be in the hands of dinosaurs. Where ever there is a demand for a product, there will always be a company ready to step in and meet it. That is the beautiful thing about capatilism. I am excited at the thought that America could someday again be global leaders in the auto industry, and I am confident that could happen with or without the big three.

What do you think?

Read Mitt Romney's article here.

Founding Father quote of the day

Whatever may be the judgment pronounced on the competency of the architects of the Constitution, or whatever may be the destiny of the edifice prepared by them, I feel it a duty to express my profound and solemn conviction ... that there never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them.

James Madison, circa 1835