Quote of the Day 11-2-10
Many who are personally pro-life do not vote pro-life publicly, either because they don’t think the state has a right to interfere with such matters or because they believe their vote will be in vain, or a combination of the two….
If one thinks it is wrong to kill an unborn baby, then it’s asinine to think the state has not the obligation to uphold morality and protect fetuses’ rights and lives.
It is the ultimate political lie that legal and state subservience to morality is a polar opposite of freedom.
Rather, morality and freedom’s opposite is slavery – slavery to errors and dangerous desires.
States have the obligation to safeguard our freedoms and rights and protect us from threats, even if those threats are ourselves.
States and societies not built on sound morality but on the numbers of cops, judges and soldiers do not last. If the state cannot protect the weakest of us from death, then what good is it?
~Michael Piano, The Daily Athenaeum, October 31
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Being personally pro-life but voting pro-choice is actually being pro-choice. It is self-deception to label oneself as pro-life and vote for pro-abortion candidates and laws.
States have the obligation to safeguard our freedoms and rights and protect us from threats, even if those threats are ourselves.
At the risk of nitpicking a comment I otherwise agree with, the above statement is problematic. The “nanny state” would love to rush in and protect us from ourselves. In eating habits, for example, where legislators are trying to force restaurants to go salt-less.
Let’s be careful how much we advocate people needing to be protected from themselves. The abortion state could turn around and use that thinking to mandate birth control, sterilization and even abortion if folks are deemed “threatened” by themselves and need protection for their own good or society’s good.
Piano is absolutely right, however, that deference to morality is not the surrender of freedom. Just the opposite. There is no freedom without morality and the protection of all human life.
“If one thinks it is wrong to kill an unborn baby, then it’s asinine to think the state has not the obligation to uphold morality and protect fetuses’ rights and lives.”
What’s asinine here is asserting that one can’t find something immoral or wrong without wanting it banned. Isn’t that the necessary logical conclusion the author arrives at? Is it possible to find smoking or indulgence with alcohol, for example, to be immoral, as many people do, without demanding that nobody be allowed to smoke or drink?
Abortion is murder. Some larger humans think it’s perfectly fine to kill smaller human beings who can’t fight back. Bullies.
The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between. ~ Mother Teresa
“If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people to not kill each other? Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.” ~ Mother Teresa
joan,
What Liz said. Love it, Liz.
Freedom isn’t the same as license. It’s paradoxical, but in reality if one is not tied to moral obligation then one is not free. This is because licentiousness and amorality lead to the enslavement of narcissism.
Gerard,
Well said. Dante’s Inferno comes to mind. I can’t imagine living in such chaos. But then, we are already killing our babies….