What ever happened to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

[olde_fashioned]

I feel compelled, by recent replies to my other posts of a political nature, to warn anyone of Democratic, liberal, or otherwise left-leaning politics that I'm posting this because at the moment I feel like expressing myself on my own blog, (even though I'm sure some comments will make me regret it later), not to offend anyone intentionally but to voice my own feelings on a subject which is surely foremost in the majority of minds in this country, if not the world. So this is a warning that few populi will like what I'm about to say, so don't both clicking the cut line if you're not able to read opposing viewpoints and comment like a sensible adult. Everyone is welcome to comment, only refrain from giving me the broadside, please.



Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What does that even mean any more? It means "a woman's right to choose, tolerance of all things immoral, and the separation of church and state." Perhaps we should just strike out the "life" part and replace it with "choice," remove the "liberty," trade it for "tolerance," eliminate the "happiness," swapping it for "all about me" and have done with it.

What happened to a human being's "inalienable rights"? It seems they go out the window when that being becomes an unwanted burden, or a "threat" to a woman's life. We can have liberty, and freedom of speech, so long as we don't exercise that freedom proclaiming our beliefs if they happen to be in opposition to what is politically correct. We can't have any Christianity in our government, but the government wants to tell us what we can and can't preach in those religions. The likes of Rosie O'Donnell can talk about how horrible Christians are, and Evolutionists can curse those who believe in Creation, but heaven forbid a Christian should speak out against homosexuality or the idea that we evolved from apes.

What is wrong with this picture?

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."

Oh, how much can change in two hundred years. In 2009, the object of our government (and a saddeningly large portion of American citizens) seems to be to deny helpless human beings their right to life and happiness, by destroying them under the blessing of the very lawmakers that are supposed to protect them.

This is the same Thomas Jefferson, by the way, that ended his oft-quoted "separation of church and state" letter with, I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man." So very interesting, isn't it? That the man whose words have been used for decades as an excuse to rid this country of it's godly foundations was also a fervent Christian himself.

I often wonder, how different would our Founding Fathers have designed our Declaration of Independence, how differently would they have worded our Constitution, and how much would they lament the turn this country has taken, if they could see us now?

I am very glad, that they cannot see us now, for I think we would break their hearts.

I think it would break their hearts, as it breaks mine, that we are on the verge of electing the most liberal senator who has a record worse than the likes of Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy (!!) into the highest office in the land. That we might very well have a Muslim as our next president, who is not even man enough or faithful enough to admit that he was born and raised in that religion, who is ashamed of America, has promised to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act which will once again make partial-birth abortions legal, who wants to deny babies who have already been born basic human rights, and who wants to have tea parties with our international enemies who would probably take very great pleasure out of nuking us off the face of the planet.

I wish the liberals that had vowed to flee the country when Bush was elected had left, then perhaps we would not have to worry about the fate of our country.

I hope God saves this country from herself.

Comments

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

I don't mind dissenting voices at all so long as they are polite. The tone of your comment was more than polite, so thank you for that. :-)

If a woman can't take responsibility for her own body, then she definitely shouldn't be taking responsibility for another human's life

But the fact is that if a woman is already pregnant, then she is already responsible for another life. And choosing to end that life forever is worse than any bad parenting.

Read these links HERE (http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-blocked-law-to-prevent-babies-who.html), HERE (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml) and HERE (http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/search?q=partial+birth).

Not all Muslims are terrorists, correct, but what do you call someone who rubs elbows with them? HERE (http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/04/obamas-friendship-with-pro-plo-advocate.html)

[librarianofdoom.livejournal.com]

Erm, I was hoping for some articles that were a bit more factual rather than opinion-based, and that cited their sources, but if you read this article (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html), especially in the section titled "On the Record," it states that Obama refused to support legislation that guaranteed the rights of previable fetuses--fetuses that are not yet capable of surviving outside the womb--on the grounds that it could be used to overturn the rights guaranteed in Roe v. Wade. What that says, to me, is that he wasn't willing to sacrifice women's right to choose, when existing state legislation already protects the rights of fetuses who have a chance of surviving outside the womb (i.e. late-term abortions). (See this article (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_alive_baloney.html))

As for a pregnant woman already being responsible for another life, that is a valid point, but that woman's responsibility encompasses so much more than just giving birth to her baby. That child is going to have its personality, its ethics, and its life skills shaped by that woman. That child's physical health is dependent on the mother's ability to provide for it and give it a safe, clean environment. That child's emotional health is dependent on that woman's ability to devote a great deal of time and attention to the well-being of the child (which is difficult to do if you're working two or more jobs trying to pay the rent and put food on the table). While there are some exceptions, I believe that the vast majority of women considering an abortion are not at all capable of providing all those things--especially in today's economy. As soon as I see some evidence that every single unwanted child will find an adoptive family who will care for it and provide it with all the emotional, physical, and financial support it needs, THEN I'll accept a ban on abortions--provided that there are measures to protect the life and health of the mother, and in cases of rape or incest.

Also, according to several sources, including the Rockefeller Commission Report on Population and the American Future (http://www.population-security.org/rockefeller/011_human_reproduction.htm), as the number of legalized abortions increases, the number of maternal deaths resulting from illegal abortions has gone down. The highest number of unwanted pregnancies occur in population groups with the lowest education level and the lowest income. Women who are scared, poor, and under-educated are going to have an abortion one way or another (most of human history tells us this), so shouldn't we be trying to prevent the loss of further life due to unsanitary conditions?

Honestly, I'm more than a little surprised that, in your original post, you say that you're feeling oppressed, because that's exactly how I feel every time I hear from people in your camp. I'm sick at heart and completely devastated at the way that George W. Bush has gotten us into a war that had little or nothing to do with 9/11, has used this war as an excuse to eradicate our rights as citizens (privacy, freedom of information, right to a fair trial, etc.), and has flushed our economy down the toilet. McCain, with his attitude of "Victory, no matter the cost!" scares me, not only for the sake of the soldiers--nearly all of whom are coming from lower-income families--who are being sent to die for a war that *we* started, and haven't been able to finish, but also for our economy, which is going to continue to nosedive as we pour more and more money into a never-ending conflict halfway around the globe. I fear for myself and for all my friends who are pagan, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or Sikh, because I believe that McCain, and ESPECIALLY Sarah Palin if she ever gets into office, will run roughshod over the rights and interests of non-Christians. I respect the Bible as a guide for the daily lives of Christians, but not everyone in this country is Christian, and their voices need to be heard too.

In short, I believe that if you want people to change their behaviour, you should give them reasons, not just threaten them with a prison sentence.

[olde-fashioned.livejournal.com]

I believe the links I gave you were citing sources. :-) Also you didn't specify which kind of websites you wanted references from so I didn't know you had preferences.

Obama can give any sort of excuse for voting against the bill that he wants, but that doesn't make it true. Considering as he has a track record for telling lies when it suits him, how are we supposed to know if he just decided he didn't like the font they used on the bill??

The health of the mother aside, people need to take responsibility for having sex, plain and simple. If people lack the economical and emotional wherewithal to successfully raise a child, then I have one word for them: NO. I think this is more a case of people wanting to have their cake and eat it too, with no repercussions, i.e., children.

Why you would accept a ban on abortions in the case of provisions made for every adopted child, if you don't believe abortion is wrong?

Women who are scared, poor, and under-educated are going to have an abortion one way or another

Using the argument that "people are going to do it, anyway, so why not make it legal?" is a very, very bad idea. There are always going to be prostitutes and drugs, so why not make them both legal and form regulations and unions to keep people from getting STDs or killing themselves with an overdose?

I respect the Bible as a guide for the daily lives of Christians, but not everyone in this country is Christian, and their voices need to be heard too.

Actually, both now and historically, "Christian" nations with Christian leaders give more rights to people of all faiths than nations with non-Christian foundations. All a person has to do is look at the Middle East and Asia to see human rights being trampled, and there aren't any Christian leaders at the helm of those nations.

Honestly, I'm more than a little surprised that, in your original post, you say that you're feeling oppressed, because that's exactly how I feel every time I hear from people in your camp.

Now you're lumping me into a category which I don't believe you have any reason to class me with, save that I'm a Christian and a conservative. I'm certainly no fan of Bush, and I strongly disapprove of a lot of his actions. All Christians, all Republicans, and all conservatives are no more alike than all non-Christians, all Democrats, and all liberals are alike, so please don't make sweeping assertions based on my values when you don't know very much about them.

you should give them reasons, not just threaten them with a prison sentence.

Who said anything about prison?!