Mr. President:
I, like many individuals comprising our Nation, was moved by your words following the Sandy Hook Massacre. So much so that I would like to extensively quote you, if I may. Please, review your words with me:
This is our first task—caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.
And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children—all of them—safe from harm? Can we claim, as a nation, that we’re all together there, letting them know that they are loved, and teaching them to love in return? Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?
I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change.
We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law—no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.
But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child . . . then surely we have an obligation to try.
Indeed.
And, of course, your words following Sandy Hook go hand in hand with what you said for Father’s Day 2011. Again, bear with me while we review your words together:
That is why we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one.
As fathers, we need to be involved in our children’s lives not just when it’s convenient or easy, and not just when they’re doing well—but when it’s difficult and thankless, and they’re struggling. That is when they need us most.
I could not possibly agree with you more, Mr. President. Unfortunately, what you have said is terribly inconsistent with what you have done.
Your unequivocal support for that billion-dollar corporate fat-cat that is the largest abortion provider in America, Planned Parenthood; your ceaseless attempts to limit restrictions on abortion; your glorification of abortion providers; you have even gone so far as to say that you would not want your own daughters “punished” with a baby.
The way you and the First Lady were punished with babies?
As I am sure you know, the scientific criteria for “life” is as follows:
- Chemical Uniqueness - Demonstrate a unique and complex molecular structure
- Complexity and hierarchical organization - Demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical structure
- Reproduction - Reproduce themselves
- Possession of a genetic program - Possess a genetic program that provides fidelity of inheritance
- Metabolism - Possess a metabolism capable of maintaining themselves by obtaining nutrients from their environments
- Development - Pass through a characteristic life cycle of development
- Environmental Reaction - Interact with their environment
(Rutten, Christina, “The Definition of Life,” http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/life.htm, April 20, 1999, accessed January 17, 2013.)
I would like to pose a hypothetical situation for you. While you are the sitting president, an American and Russian joint space-exploration team discovers life, in the form of a single-cell organism, on a neighboring planet. This single-cell organism meets the above criteria for “life.” What do you, as president, do? Would you rejoice with the scientific community for the discovery of this life? Mark the day of the discovery a national holiday and mandate a staunch protection of this new life, as the greatest minds of our nation move forward with studying the life?
Or would you view this new life as a potential threat to the rights and freedoms of humans? Would you order that this threat be swiftly and prematurely destroyed—in the name of human rights and freedoms, of course?
I cannot help but feel that if life were to be discovered on another planet, your actions would parallel the former. I cannot help but feel that you would rejoice in the discovery and mark it a great advancement for mankind.
But I might be wrong. You may, just as the Supreme Court did with the unprecedented decision of Roe v Wade, throw out and neglect the very essence of American jurisprudence: that in matters of uncertainty, it is the role of the law to proceed with the utmost caution.
In his majority opinion for Roe v Wade, Justice Blackmun expressed that the Court could not define when life began; but then almost immediately went back on his word and proclaimed that life begins with viability—though he had just moments before said that there were some in our society that felt life began at the moment of conception. Had Justice Blackmun been concerned with the role of the law in matters of uncertainty, he would have walked on eggshells with this decision and sought to protect human life at the earliest stage possible.
That was the 1970’s. The science was murky, I suppose. But we, as a nation, no longer have any excuses. It is a scientific, biological fact that life begins at conception.
- Fertilized eggs posses their own unique and unrepeatable DNA from the moment of conception. Chemical Uniqueness? Check.
- The cell is the most basic unit in the biological hierarchy. Complexity and hierarchical organization? Check.
- Fertilized eggs may reproduce asexually through twinning and they also possess cell reproduction. Additionally, given time and development, the zygote will become independent and sexually mature. Reproduction? Check.
- The 46 chromosomes present in the fertilized egg at the moment of conception provide all the genetic information that it will ever need. Possession of a genetic program? Check.
- Fertilized eggs gather nutrients from their environment, as any OB/GYN will tell you. Metabolism? Check.
- Development? Check.
- At every stage in the womb, there is environmental interaction. Check.
(Ibid.)
Why, Mr. President, are not the smallest, weakest, most vulnerable and marginalized among our society given the same standard of care, consideration and protection as, say, the environment? The eggs of Bald Eagles? Miniscule fish found in the bodies of water in California
All in the name of Women’s Rights?
Mr. President, I know you abhor the Constitution of the United States of America California
It should be no different when it comes to the new life at the moment of conception.
While you call for action to prevent senseless acts of violence in our society, you advocate for senseless acts of violence in the wombs of women.
The eight-week old fetus being sucked by a powerful vacuum suction out of his mother’s vagina—either whole or in pieces. Is not that violent?
The fourteen-week old fetus being torn limb for limb by forceps; her skull crushed and her spine snapped in half; and all those pieces evacuated from the womb. Is not that violent?
The seventeen-week old fetus either swallowing saline in his mother’s amniotic fluid or being directly injected with saline, and slowly burning to death. Is not that violent?
A child, born alive and healthy after a failed abortion, being stabbed in the head or heart with scissors; or left in a trash can or toilet to slowly die of neglect and starvation. Is not that violent?
Mr. President, your feeble attempts to curtail violence in our society will fail, and they will always fail, so long as you, our political parties, and our nation advocate violence in the womb. If we as a society are to value life, we need to start by protecting it in utero.
“If there is even one step we can take to save another child . . . then surely we have an obligation to try.”
You can start by reviewing Roe v Wade with a heavy heart and contemplate the metaphysical disparity of such blatant moral depravity.
Sincerely,
SLB
