Life, Liberty, Property, and the Unborn

While John Locke argued government must
"protect" natural rights, the Founding
Fathers wrote it was government's job
to "secure" our natural rights. (I go over the word
"secure" in the Preamble in a video beginning at 20:00)

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

"Life Begins at Conception" is the battle cry I hear quite often in the abortion debate.

Nobody argues whether or not "life" begins at conception.  The sperm unites with the egg, cells begin to divide, and a new DNA code is written.  Life begins at conception.  Science leaves no doubt regarding the issue.  The question is, "Is that life a person?"

The proponents of abortion use words like "fetus" and "zygote" so as to wield a little word magic regarding the issue so that you fall for the "it's only a clump of cells" or "clump of tissue" argument.  Except, I don't recall ever hearing someone say, "Ah, when it your fetus due?"  We always ask, "When is your baby due?" because we know instinctively that the being in the womb of a mother is a baby; a person in the early developmental stages of life.

Science agrees.  As the advancement of technology gives us better understanding about the developmental phase of people in the womb we are learning about how fully formed these unborn babies are, when they begin to feel pain, when they react to intrusions into the womb, and when the heart begins to beat.

Amendment V., and Amendment XIV. of the United States Constitution both contain the words, "no person shall be deprived of their life, liberty, or property without due process."

Based on those statements in the Constitution regarding our natural rights the reality is that if that baby is indeed a "person", that person has a right to live and that life cannot be snuffed out for any reason, unless that person has been convicted of a capital crime and the punishment after being afforded due process is death.

Simple legal definitions apply.

Of course, from a moral standpoint any person with a moral compass grounded in the principles that there is a Creator, and that all babies in all stages of development are "persons" must come to the conclusion that abortion is a violation of an unborn baby's right to live.

Natural Rights are funny things.  Our rights extend to the edge of another's rights.  I may have the right to swing my fists in the air, but people nearby have a right not to be punched in the face with my fists.  Therefore, I do not have the right to swing my fists into the face (or other body areas, for that matter) of another individual.  That's how rights operate.  We can't simply kill someone because it provides a result we believe to be beneficial to ourselves.  

We have a word for killing people with malicious intent (which is pretty much anything other than killing during warfare, or accidental death).  It's called, "murder".

In the end, from a legal perspective, the reality is clear.  Babies are people, and they have a right to live, despite a woman's claim she has "reproductive rights".  Reproductive Rights may include a number of things, including contraception, but murder cannot be included; not legally, not morally.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary