 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
|
|
|
To perform a search, click on ==> Search
Right to Life Vs.
Free Speech
by Nic Samojluk
Responding to the terrorist attack on British soil, plus the failed terrorist attempt that followed, Prime Minister Tony Blair has decided that the right to life of British citizens trumpts the terrorists right to free speech. If adopted, the new policy would allow Great Britain to deport anybody who engaged in inciting hatred and violence on British soil. Common sense dictates that the right to life of British civilians is more sacred that the right to free speech of those who misuse their freedom in order to encourage violence against innocent civilians.
| Quote: |
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced new measures to deport extremists who "incite hatred." The Guardian reports that the the list of suggested reasons for deportation include "fostering hatred, advocating violence to further a person's beliefs, or justifying or validating such violence."
Mr. Blair also said that he was prepared to a change Britain's Human Rights Act "in repects of interpretation of the European convention on Human Rights" if someone tried to fight the new laws in the courts.
|
If we apply the same common sense reasoning to the abortion issue, we should conclude that the right to life of the unborn should also trump the right to women's freedom of choice. Life should always be more sacred than the right to deprive human beings of life. Those whose business is depriving innocent human beings of life should be either deported or else placed in jail. Abortionists have prostituted their profession, whose mission is to save life instead of profitting from its suppression, and they should be prevented from profitting from crime with impunity.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0805/dailyUpdate.html
Who Has the Right to Life?
by Nic Samojluk
Since the dawn of humanity people have debated the question dealing with the right to life. In the Old Testament, murderers, prostitutes, sorcerers, and Sabbath breakers had no right to live. Moses declared that they had to be stoned to death, and some of them suffered such penalty.
Nevertheless, when Jesus was confronted with the dilemma of what to do with the woman caught in adultery, he declared: Whoever is without sin, let him throw the first stone. Well, you know what happened, as the Master knelt down to write on the sand, one by one the woman's accusers left, and then Jesus said to her: Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more.
Throughout history, only a selected group of people had the right to live. They were called free man. Slaves had no such right. A master could kill his slave with impunity, and many did so; but then came Abraham Lincoln, and decided that fighting a civil war was worth to free slaves from this injustice. When the American Civil War was over, slaves sudenly became members of humanity with certain rights, including the right to life.
This right to life is embedded in the Declaration of Indepencence and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Let us examine what these documents declare regardidng the right to life:
| Quote: |
| 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, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. |
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/decind.html
Now let's take a look at the fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
| Quote: |
| Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. |
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
If you read carefully the above-quoted statement, you realize that in order to be entitled to life, you must have been born within the territory of the United States, or else be a naturalized citizen. On the surface, it seems to imply that the unborn are not entitled to life. Nevertheless, if we say this, then we must also conclude that non-citizens are also deprived of the protection granted to citizens.
Is this the case? Am I free to murder those who have entered illegally into the U.S. territory, or those who have not yet become citizens? I do not think so! The law protects them, even though they were neither born on U.S. soil, nor have they yet become naturalized citizens of the country.
If this is the case, then I conclude that those who are waiting to be born should have the same right to life and the protection of U.S. law. Do they? Why not? The answer lies in the erroneous thinking of nine U.S. judges who three decades ago decided to deprive the unborn of their unalienable right to life.
What kind of reasoning did lead them to make such an unwarranted conclusion? The answer is simple: they invented the right to murder the innocent out of the right to privacy. My question is: can my right to privacy include the right to deprive another human being of life? Is my privacy more sacred than the right to life of those who are waiting to be born? Can this right to freedom truncate somebody else's right to life?
The violation o my right to privacy can represent a temporary inconvenience, while the right to life, once taken, cannot be given back. The result of this loss is irreversible. Doesn't common sense dictate that the right to life should have priority over any conflicting right? Is my thinking on this matter morally unbalanced?
If not, then I conclude that those nine judges who removed the unborn's right to life made one of the biggest blunders in U.S. history, and it is time to make the proper correction! We need another Abraham Lincoln who is willing to stand for the rights of those who were declared non-persons three decades ago, and thus became easy prey of abortionists whose aim is profit from the genocide of the unborn.
 Free Mailing List Club!
If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.
|
|
| |
|
|
