Quote of the day

Also, Bryan, I would ask that you and/or Michelle Malkin highlight this piece by Ronald Reagan once again here at HotAir or at Michelle Malkin.com. I would be interested in seeing a discussion not of abortion in the theoretic or legal sense, but of Ronald Reagan’s essay and opinions on the matter specifically. I fear that we have regressed as a nation since 1983 and that today, Ronald Reagan would never have a chance of being elected. Especially when I read comments here at HotAir from commenters who denigrate the ideals put forth in that essay.

Michael in MI on October 20, 2007 at 1:37 PM

Yep, the more I re-read this, the more I realize that were any current candidate to repeat these words of Reagan, the more he would be demonized by those many commenters here at HotAir who are critical of “evangelicals” and any of us who consider abortion one of the critical issues of our society.

Malcolm Muggeridge, the English writer, goes right to the heart of the matter: “Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other.” The sanctity of innocent human life is a principle that Congress should proclaim at every opportunity.

It is possible that the Supreme Court itself may overturn its abortion rulings. We need only recall that in Brown v. Board of Education the court reversed its own earlier “separate-but-equal” decision. I believe if the Supreme Court took another look at Roe v. Wade, and considered the real issue between the sanctity of life ethic and the quality of life ethic, it would change its mind once again.

As we continue to work to overturn Roe v. Wade, we must also continue to lay the groundwork for a society in which abortion is not the accepted answer to unwanted pregnancy. Pro-life people have already taken heroic steps, often at great personal sacrifice, to provide for unwed mothers. I recently spoke about a young pregnant woman named Victoria, who said, “In this society we save whales, we save timber wolves and bald eagles and Coke bottles. Yet, everyone wanted me to throw away my baby.” She has been helped by Save-a-Life, a group in Dallas, which provides a way for unwed mothers to preserve the human life within them when they might otherwise be tempted to resort to abortion. I think also of House of His Creation in Catesville, Pennsylvania, where a loving couple has taken in almost 200 young women in the past ten years. They have seen, as a fact of life, that the girls are not better off having abortions than saving their babies. I am also reminded of the remarkable Rossow family of Ellington, Connecticut, who have opened their hearts and their home to nine handicapped adopted and foster children.

The Adolescent Family Life Program, adopted by Congress at the request of Senator Jeremiah Denton, has opened new opportunities for unwed mothers to give their children life. We should not rest until our entire society echoes the tone of John Powell in the dedication of his book, Abortion: The Silent Holocaust, a dedication to every woman carrying an unwanted child: “Please believe that you are not alone. There are many of us that truly love you, who want to stand at your side, and help in any way we can.” And we can echo the always-practical woman of faith, Mother Teresa, when she says, “If you don’t want the little child, that unborn child, give him to me.” We have so many families in America seeking to adopt children that the slogan “every child a wanted child” is now the emptiest of all reasons to tolerate abortion.

I have often said we need to join in prayer to bring protection to the unborn. Prayer and action are needed to uphold the sanctity of human life. I believe it will not be possible to accomplish our work, the work of saving lives, “without being a soul of prayer.” The famous British Member of Parliament, William Wilberforce, prayed with his small group of influential friends, the “Clapham Sect,” for decades to see an end to slavery in the British empire. Wilberforce led that struggle in Parliament, unflaggingly, because he believed in the sanctity of human life. He saw the fulfillment of his impossible dream when Parliament outlawed slavery just before his death.

Let his faith and perseverance be our guide. We will never recognize the true value of our own lives until we affirm the value in the life of others, a value of which Malcolm Muggeridge says:. . . however low it flickers or fiercely burns, it is still a Divine flame which no man dare presume to put out, be his motives ever so humane and enlightened.”

Michael in MI on October 20, 2007 at 1:57 PM

My purpose for posting this article is that I have read on many ‘conservative’/Republican blogs that having a leader in the Pro-Life movement in the White House doesn’t matter, since President Reagan did nothing while he was President. Not true. President Reagan led a movement. He wasn’t wishy-washy over what was practical or the legalities of abortion. He focused on the morality of the sanctity of life vs quality of life issue. That is what this debate should be about.

No candidate – from Rudy to Fred Thompson – as far as I can see so for, has dared even addressed abortion and the sanctity of life in this manner. They all copout and focus on legalities and what is practical.

None of the great movements in our country’s history would have ever gotten anywhere were that to be the focus. They all focused on the morality of the issue – from slavery to women’s rights to the civil rights movement. In all cases, the laws were changed and then the culture of our nation caught up. Had the leaders of those movements just said that they needed to keep the status quo and be “practical”, our nation would be very different today.

Michael in MI on October 20, 2007 at 2:05 PM