YOU TOLD A GROUP OF US ONCE THAT, THAT ANIMATING
CONCERNS THAT BROUGHT YOU INTO PUBLIC LIFE WERE
DEFENSE AND PRESERVATION OF THE NATION OF ISRAEL
AND THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE AND YOU DREW AN
INTERESTING ANALOGY IN SPEAKING ABOUT HUMAN LIFE
WITH RESPECT TO THE DEHUMANIZATION OF PEOPLE
IN THE SLAVERY QUESTION AND CORRELATING THAT WITH
THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE.
COULD YOU UNPACK THAT A LITTLE BIT FOR US?
SURE, WELL IF YOU GO BACK TO THE 1840'S AND 1850'S
THE DEBATE OVER SLAVERY OF COURSE WAS BECOMING MORE
AND MORE ANIMATED AND VIOLENT QUITE FRANKLY, IN
THE MIDDLE OF ALL THAT A BIG LEGAL DISPUTE BROKE OUT.
A RUNAWAY SLAVE NAMED DRED SCOTT ESCAPED FROM HIS OWNER;
"HIS OWNER," EVEN THE WORDS ARE OFFENSIVE TO SAY.
AND HE WAS CAPTURED AND THE LEGAL DISPUTE WAS
ABOUT WHETHER HE SHOULD BE RETURNED TO HIS OWNER OR
NOT, AND THAT LEGAL DISPUTE WHEN IT WENT TO
THE SUPREME COURT, ALL DEPENDED ON WHAT DRED
SCOTT WAS ACCORDING TO THE COURT.
IF DRED SCOTT WAS A MERE PIECE OF PROPERTY, THEN HE
WOULD BE RETURNED TO HIS OWNER BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT
YOU DO WITH PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN LOST OR
MISPLACED OR WHATEVER.
BUT IF HE WAS A HUMAN BEING, WELL THEN HE WOULD
BE PROTECTED UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF OUR
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, WHERE IT
SAYS WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT THAT
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL AND ENDOWED BY THEIR
CREATOR, GOD WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, AMONG
THESE RIGHTS LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
WELL UNBELIEVABLY, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES SAID THAT DRED SCOTT WAS PROPERTY,
NOT A MAN FOR PURPOSES OF OUR CONSTITUTION.
NOW WHEN I USED TO LEARN ABOUT THAT CHAPTER IN OUR
HISTORY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME TO MY MIND WAS
THAT CERTAINLY AFTER MAKING SUCH A HORRENDOUS
DECISION IN THE PAST, THAT NO FUTURE SUPREME COURT
WOULD EVER DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT AGAIN, WHERE A
WHOLE GROUP OF PEOPLE WERE TAKEN TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE
CONFINES OF THE PROMISES OF THE AMERICAN FOUNDING.
BUT, LO AND BEHOLD, THE COURT DID IT AGAIN IN 1973
IN ROE VS WADE.
WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THAT ABORTION DECISION, WHAT
WAS BEFORE THE COURT WAS THE QUESTION OF WHAT IS
THE LEGAL STATUS OF AN UNBORN CHILD?
IS IT JUST A THING, A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAS
NO RIGHTS OTHER THAN WHAT SOMEONE ELSE IS WILLING TO
GRANT IT, OR IS THAT UNBORN CHILD A HUMAN
BEING?
IF IT'S A HUMAN BEING, WELL THEN IT'S BEEN MADE
IN THE IMAGE OF GOD AND ACCORDING TO THE CLEAR
WORDS OF OUR FOUNDING, IT'S PROTECTED BY THE LAW.
THE COURT SADLY DECIDED THAT IT WAS, IT HAD NO
LEGAL CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER; IT WAS THE
EQUIVALENT OF A STYROFOAM CUP TO BE DISPOSED OF AT
WHIM.
CERTAINLY SCIENCE HAS MOVED AGAINST THE
ARGUMENTS IN ROE.
THE ADVANCEMENT OF NEONATOLOGY AND THE
UNDERSTANDING OF WHEN LIFE BEGINS AND SCIENTISTS CAN
STILL POINT TO NO OTHER PLACE TO THE BEGINNING OF
ANY LIFE, LET ALONE HUMAN LIFE, THAN THE POINT OF
CONCEPTION.
SCIENCE HAS MOVED OUR WAY BUT THAT HASN'T STOPPED
THE ANTI-LIFE ACTIVISTS HAS IT?
NO IT HASN'T, YOU PROBABLY HAVE NOTICED THAT
CHRISTIANS AND CONSERVATIVES ARE OFTEN
ACCUSED OF BEING ANTI-SCIENCE.
YES.
BUT THEN I HEAR PROGRESSIVES "LEARNED MEN
AND WOMEN" AND IN FACT OUR FORMER PRESIDENT,
PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS FAMOUSLY ASKED IN A FORUM
WHEN DID LIFE BEGIN.
AND HE RESPONDED WELL THAT'S ABOVE MY PAY GRADE.
AND I THOUGHT AT THE TIME WELL MY GOODNESS, SOMEBODY
BUY THE MAN A 5TH GRADE BIOLOGY TEXT BOOK.
I MEAN, LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION AND THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DIDN'T SEEM TO
UNDERSTAND THAT, WAS FAIRLY AMAZING AND
DISAPPOINTING.
NO LOOK, SCIENCE GETS MANIPULATED IN THE
POLITICAL ARENA FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES.
NO ONE CAN ARGUE THAT THERE'S A MYSTERY ABOUT
WHEN LIFE BEGINS, AS WE'VE SEEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN
IT'S ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.
IN FACT, AT THAT MOMENT OF CONCEPTION EVERYTHING
ABOUT THAT NEW HUMAN BEING HAS ALREADY BEEN
DETERMINED BY THE GENETIC COMBINATION THAT HAS BEEN
MADE THERE AND WE SEE THAT WITH THE MIRACLE OF EVERY BIRTH.
I THINK THE BEST THING WE HAVE GOING FOR US IS THAT
WE DO HAVE SONOGRAMS, PEOPLE HAVE SEEN THE CHILD
DEVELOP IN THE WOMB AND WE SEE MEDICAL DOCTORS AND
SURGEONS ACTUALLY OPERATE ON BABIES IN THE WOMB.
WE KNOW THERE'S TWO HEARTBEATS NOT ONE AND WE
ALSO KNOW IN THE BROADER PICTURE THAT EVERY
ABORTION HAS TWO VICTIMS, THE CHILD THAT'S BEEN
DESTROYED AND THE WOMAN WHO HAS SUFFERED A
GRIEVOUS INJURY EVEN IF AT THE TIME SHE BELIEVES IT'S
SOMETHING THAT SHE WANTED.
SO AMERICA WILL NEVER BE IN MY VIEW FULLY A SHINING
CITY ON A HILL, WHICH IS WHAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED,
AS LONG AS THIS INJUSTICE OF ABORTION ON DEMAND IS
ALLOWED TO CONTINUE.
For more infomation >> GFPS redistricting plan raises questions, meeting set for Tuesday - Duration: 3:00. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét