Do ‘Very Different Views’ Threaten the Sanctity of Life?

Originally posted at The Clash Daily

The current excuse for justifying illegal immigration is that amnesty benefits our nation’s fiscal health. The thinking is that the economic strength gained by legalizing those who’ve defied America’s rules of entry far outweighs any moral or ethical benefits of upholding the rule of law. Supposedly, that’s why the millions of illegals infiltrating the borders of our sovereign nation are being advocated for by the current administration.

What’s disturbing about that mentality is that if the health of the economy dictates the direction of policy decisions, then the elderly and the infirm have potentially joined the ranks of the unborn, whose lives are already at risk.

Unlike young illegals, older and chronically ill Americans do not contribute to fiscal solvency. While the argument is that amnesty will foster economic strength, it seems that not far behind is the argument that the ailing and the aged add to economic weakness.
Here’s the problem: In America, for 40+ years personal opinion, political leaning, and economic convenience have justified 60+ million Americans not making it out of 60+ million wombs alive.

For four decades, the life of every baby conceived has been at the mercy of one person’s choice. Now, with a political party in power that has wrested the reins of control over healthcare decisions from the individual as well as the free market, older, dependent Americans are potentially also on the precipice of being at the mercy of a renegade government’s “choice.”

Think about it – isn’t “Am I still allowed to do this, or am I still allowed to say that” the question that once-free people are asking themselves more and more lately, especially since government has positioned itself to be as integral to sustaining life as an umbilical cord is to the life of a fetus?

That’s why, as the authority of those whose fundamental agenda is toxic to the sanctity of life continues to grow, in the minds of alert, intelligent people the next question that should arise is: “What happens to those who burden the economy?”

Add to that scenario an imperial president who, with the stroke of a pen, is actively whittling away the right to “life,” – underscore “life” – “liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Recently, the danger of putting the economy before a principled ethos, be it in the form of a mother over child, or potentially the government over whole segments of society, took center stage when the daughter of the late Governor Ann Richards of Texas, Cecile Richards – proud President of Planned Parenthood – gave America a free tour of the “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” mindset.

Speaking to Jorge Ramos of the new ABC/Disney/Univision Fusion network, Richards revealed an attitude that should send shivers up the spine of every involuntary recipient of government largesse.

Ramos asked Richards a question reminiscent of the “above my pay grade” human-rights question that Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren asked Barack Obama prior to the 2008 election. Ramos to Richards: “So for you, when does life start? When does a human being become a human being?”

Clad appropriately in blood-red, Richards punted to the centuries-old debate/moral relevancy corner when she basically refused to answer, saying, “This is a question, I think, that will be debated through the centuries, and people come down to very different views on that.”

Alarmingly, in liberal circles “very different views” are the new standards that determine ethical verdicts, which are then either sanctioned or deemed illegal by dictatorial rule.

Ramos pressed on: “Why would it be so controversial for you to say when you think life starts?” Attempting to skirt the issue Cecile said, “I don’t know that it’s controversial. I don’t know that it’s really relevant to the conversation.”

The old and sickly especially should take note of Richards’ unwillingness to answer Ramos’ question, because for organizations that receive government support to snuff out human life, the point of viability is apparently not relevant in discussions about life-and-death.

Remember that America is currently being governed by a president who defines “healthcare” as something that includes the right to terminate life. Worse yet, behind closed doors Obama has consistently elevated his “very different views” above the safeguards of the U.S. Constitution.

Richards went on to say that (just like the liberal view that the illegality of sneaking over the border should not be part of the amnesty conversation) fetal life is not really relevant to the abortion conversation.

Translation: Purposeful deprivation of life isn’t the issue, because according to Ms. Richards, for her three children who miraculously made it out of her womb alive, her “very different view” is that “life began when I delivered them.”

The question then becomes: How long before the government’s “very different view” is that, along with economy-boosting illegals being granted legal amnesty, undue economic stressors should be legally eliminated?

With that in mind, it’s not hard to imagine that one day, when asked if it is ethical to terminate or grant life based solely on economic standards, the answer from people like Barack Obama could be, “That is not something government feels really should be part of this conversation.”