“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.”

~The Declaration of Independence~

Focus on this issue has diverted to other essential issues such as the state of the economy and the bailouts, but this issue concerns what may be our most sacred and essential civil liberty of all: human life.

Abortion has invoked so much emotional debate on both sides that it is even considered to be a “taboo” subject of discussion in public venues such as school or the work place, but it is imperative that we understand the importance of protecting life in the ideal free society with constitutionally limited government. If we compromise life then we set a dangerous precendent to compromise our other civil liberties as well. Because life and liberty are inseparable, undermining life (yes, at conception) leaves an open wound in undermining our other liberties also. Furthermore, it undermines personal responsibility on the grounds that it delivers a mesages that says you “made a mistake that you were unprepared for, therefore it can be erased with no harm done.”

The Pro-Choice components argue that the Pro-Life stance “forces victimized women to give birth to children that are financial burdens.” They have even gone as far as to say that those of a Pro-Life stance are “anti-woman.” This extremist rhetoric is far from the truth and gives no credibility to the debate at hand. As a Pro-Life and pro-Liberty Conservative, I believe in the Doctrine of Life that is promoted in the Declaration of Independence that a constitutionally limited government has a moral duty to protect our civil liberties, life being our most essential liberty. Pro-Choice preach on the ideal of “women’s reproductive rights” and the progress of driving out the Pro-Life factions, but the second you toss their logic into the partial-birth abortion scenario, they get squimish and back down on their principle by stating that it is “wrong” and goes too far. But what about their support of the woman’s “right to choose?” Assuming that the unborn person is not indeed a real person since its still in the womb, should this same logic STILL apply to unborn persons regardless of trimester since they are still in the womb? These are the questions that we should ask the Pro-Choice components on principle. In my perspective of the whole debate, the Pro-Life side has shown the most unwaivering consistency in positions than anyone else in terms of human life. If the Pro-Choice components truly respect personal liberty the way they claim to do, then they should keep an open mind to perserving human life at conception because without life, other liberties are compromised.

In order to ensure and promote intellectual debate on this subject, I will address some serious myths that have perverted the overall debate on Abortion:

1) “All Pro-Life components are anti-woman, Religious-Right winging, white males that want to see the regression of our society by denying the woman’s right to choose” – Fact: This is clearly an untrue statement and one that lacks rational thought and regard to opposition in the debate. Former Planned Parenthood employee Abby Johnson left the Planned Parenthood scene after she was asked to assist with an ultrasound-guided abortion. She watched in horror as a 13 week baby fought, and ultimately lost, its life at the hand of abortion. She, along with many other women and other diverse demographics, have come together in the fight for the individual’s right to life, even at conception.

2) “A lot of women that have abortions do so because of conception out of incest or out of rape” – Fact: This is a mythical argument that is clearly baseless and absent of research. According to the Guttmacher Institute, approximately 3% of all abortions performed a year are reported to have occurred under the motivation of rape and incest COMBINED! Even with these small numbers, these reasons to abort human beings are unjustified on the grounds that the unborn are victims of circumstance.

3) “It is a total contradiction for someone to call themselves advocates of small government and be Pro-Life” – Fact: This is clearly untrue, otherwise I would not even go through the trouble to make my case for being a Pro-Life Conservative that supports a limited government that protects our liberty of life. Furthermore, there is a fair divide among Libertarians on this issue. Are they contradicting themselves too?

Another concept that I want to touch on is how abortion undermines not only the civil liberty of life, but personal responsibility as well. Opposition to human life make the argument that banning abortions would hurt the woman’s choice by forcing them to give birth to a child that they aren’t ready for. Who forced that woman to have sex, not to mention without protection as well? Roughly 46% of all women who have had abortions did not use contraception during the time they got pregnancy. Furthermore,  76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently. From looking at these numbers from the Guttmacher Institute, it is easy to see the decline in responsibility that we have taken for ourselves. With this technique, it has provided a sad alternative to taking measures to practice contraceptive use. When you have a service like abortion at hand, why worry about being as vigilant of your own personal responsibility in terms of avoiding pregnancy?

My overall point to this issue is not to over-politicize something over other issues, but to illustrate the dangers of compromising liberty and the poor justifications made for it. Human life is inseparable from individual liberty, therefore a sacrifice of the liberty of life is a compromise of liberty across-the-board. As my friend Adam, aka The Libertariat, puts it:” Government has the sole purpose of protecting the innocent and protecting life and liberty. Why is that right denied to an unborn child?  Why isn’t this idea progressive?  If an unborn life is so inconsequential, based on the theory of time since creation, why not make it a misdemeanor to kill a 3-year-old, and a felony to kill a 20-year-old?  Is it more palatable, socially speaking, to kill a 40-year-old than a 14-year-old? Why isn’t the 14-year-old life less significant?”

We do not need to abandon the Equal Protections element of the Constitution that ensures equal protection of ALL individuals under the law without nit-picked stipulations that are purely preferential. Unborn persons are still people from conception to birth to the end of their lives. To deny otherwise suggests that we can deny civil liberties to individuals on the grounds of preferential skepticism. Surely we would oppose this approach if it compromised our liberties.-

Life is our greatest civil liberty. Without life, we have no choice. Point blank.

Sources:  https://libertariat.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/innocence/#comments ; http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html