john paul lewis online
a young voice in the cause for liberty... |
| A Logical Look at Abortion By John Paul Lewis July 6, 2008 Since 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled on Roe V. Wade, thereby legalizing abortion, the debate on this hot button issue has only intensified. As an advocate for liberty and freedom from government, one could assume that I would be what we call "pro-choice". I am not. It is my core belief that all human life is granted freedom and liberty by their Creator. This includes the unborn life. The intent of this article is not to condemn those who are "pro-choice." Rather, this article is intended to open up the dialog within all parties to take a logical look at abortion. As we begin to discuss abortion, or any issue for that matter, we have to first define what the real problem is. In regards to abortion, the problem that continues to fuel the fire that propels the debate is the question of whether the child in the womb is living or not. By all logical reasoning, the abortion debate will end if we can come to a decision on whether or not the unborn are alive. Thus, if those of us who are pro-life can prove that life begins at conception, or at the very least, life is present in the womb of a woman with child, then Roe V. Wade must be overturned and the abortion debate will come to a conclusion. When I approach the question at hand, four possible scenarios come to mind that help us make a ruling on this question. Let us examine each of the four scenarios and then attempt to draw some conclusions: 1) The unborn child is living, and we know that it is living. If this first scenario is correct, then obviously abortion must be illegal. There is no justification for extinguishing innocent life, yet if the child in the womb is alive then abortion would be murder and therefore would be illegal. 2) The unborn child is living, but we do not know that it is living. Much like scenario one, scenario two states that the unborn child is living. If this is the case, regardless of our knowledge of whether or not it is alive, ending this child's life would be wrong even if it was not intentional. Take for example the hunter who sees movement in the bushes. Thinking the movement was a twelve point buck, he raises his gun and fires only to find that what he was shooting was not a trophy deer, rather it was another human. The hunter still is at fault for killing another human even though he did not know that what he was shooting at was a human. The same is true in the case of abortion. Even though we may not know that the unborn child is living, we still have a responsibility to protect it as if it were living in the event that we come to a new realization and find that what we have been considering not alive in fact is alive. 3) The unborn child is not living, but we do not know that it is not living. Scenarios two and three are most like the catch 22 that we find ourselves in today when discussing abortion. Neither the pro-life nor pro-choice advocates can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the unborn child is either living or not living. However, in scenario three we can revisit our irresponsible hunter friend who shoots at a movement in the bushes without knowing whether it is a deer, cow, human or some other creature. The difference in this scenario is that when the hunter shoots at the movement in the bushes he lucks out and kills his twelve point buck. Lucky him. However, his refusal to confirm that the movement was that of a deer and not of a human is foolish and irresponsible on his part. Again, the same can be said for abortion. Before we abort a fetus we must know for certain that the fetus is not in actuality a living, breathing, child. Therefore, we must consider the child living until we have proven otherwise. 4) The unborn child is not living, and we know that it is not living. Finally we come to a scenario where abortion is justified. We have the authority to perform abortions only when the child is not living, and we know that the child is not living. However, because it has yet to be proven whether the unborn child is living or not we must, for the respect of life, assume that it is indeed alive. The concept of liberty is very important. However, when we examine the issue of abortion, the ruling on Roe V. Wade didn't increase personal liberty for the individual, rather it gave an expectant mother the right to say whether or not another individual would be granted basic rights. In the case of an unborn child they are not "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." They are endowed by their mother with those rights. The mother, not the Creator, has the final say as to whether or not that child will be granted the basic rights that our Founders believed all humans were entitled to have. Take the famous lines of the second paragraph of our Declaration of Independence. "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..." These are words that all freedom loving, liberty cherishing Americans know and hold dear. However, if we assume that the moment of conception is the moment of creation, then that child, or fetus is endowed with the right to life, liberty and to pursuit of happiness. In this early part of the Declaration, Th. Jefferson makes no distinction between creation and the endowment of liberty. We must assume, because they are linked together in the same thought, that Jefferson believed that the right to life and liberty were one in the same. The moment of creation marked the moment wherein an individual begins being granted these "unalienable rights." Jefferson was not shy about his belief that God grants us life and liberty. In his "A Summary View of the Rights of British America," Jefferson states that the "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." Life and liberty go hand in hand. We have a duty to recognize liberty for all. Liberty is not given away by any government official, religious organization, or even by the mother of an unborn child. Liberty is a natural gift and we must protect it from the womb to the grave. All individuals, whether unborn or on their death bed are equal in the eyes of liberty and it should never be the right of another to say who can and cannot have liberty. Within the Libertarian Party there are differences regarding this issue. We will never all think the same, nor do we have to be. The beauty of America is that we can have differences and debate those differences until we are blue in the face. It is my humble belief, though, that the Libertarian Party could truly benefit itself it we adopted a policy position of pro-life, and pro-liberty for all, the unborn and the born alike. By adopting such a position we would open our base of supporters up to many more Evangelical Christians who are staunchly pro-life. Expanding our base and protecting and promoting liberty for all individuals would be a dangerous combination that would have the establishment on both sides, both Republican and Democrat, fearing for the future of their parties. Independence Day by John Paul Lewis July 3, 2008 What a day: Independence Day. When you stop and really think about such a day, it is really inspiring. I am not going to write an article and condemn the commercializations, that is simply stupid. However, Independence Day, to me is much like Thanksgiving Day. While we take time off of work, and spend it with friends and family to celebrate the birth of our grand Nation, it also serves as a day to be thankful for what we have. Good or bad, Conservative or Liberal, America is a great place. Now, as we enter the election season full forced we have a daunting task ahead of us. Our mission is to continue spreading the message of liberty and a return to the Constitution, and many people look upon those in our movement with antipathy and contempt. However, we have a responsibility to keep going at all costs. And we must realize that dramatic change (which is what we seek) does not come all at once, nor does it come quickly. All of us must keep in mind this Independence day, and election season that our cause is not about one election, or one candidate. We have to be prepared to give a little to get a lot in return. And when we can convince the masses to join our movement, and those already in our movement to compromise with the more moderate members of our cause, then we can truly bring about dramatic change. A New Strategy? by John Paul Lewis June 20, 2008 I have been doing a lot of thinking lately about the Ron Paul Revolution, and the overall movement toward lesser government. The movement toward a government that is economically conservative and socially tolerant. So, after much thought, here's what I've come up with: The Libertarian Party is doing wonders for the movement (I'm assuming anyone reading this knows which movement I'm referring to). I feel as if the LP is the driving force behind this movement. However, I do believe that we can not accomplish our goals alone, we have to be willing to reach over into the two major parties and take part of their voters. Possibly this can be easily done with the Republicans. There are many conservative Republicans out there, individuals who may possibly be socially conservative, yet believe that it is not the right of government to legislate moral issues. I know for a fact that there is a major voting block in the Republican Party who subscribes to this idea. It simply is up to us to go get them. I am in no way advocating that we as Libertarians change our platform or position. However, our message could use to be presented in a bit different of a manner: One that outsiders looking in can relate to and embrace. It is as a result of this belief of mine, that I have included the links to Conservative web pages both to the right side of your screen and on the links page of this site. I believe we must join together, in spite of our differences. Join together in a common cause. The Conservative Model by John Paul Lewis June 19, 2008 The 1980's provided the American people with a new sense of optimism. After living four years under a president who lacked the ability to govern in a manner which gave citizens a sense of hope for the future, Americans felt it was time for a change: that change was Ronald Reagan. President Reagan, who is refereed to by many as "The Great Communicator", restored a sense of pride and unity in America. From shore to shore American once again was becoming a beacon for freedom and liberty in a troubled world. This great skill by Reagan, to inspire, is one that Conservatives have not found in a candidate since the election of 1980. Because of Reagan's ability to reach out to the common individual and touch their life in a way they had never experienced, Reagan soared to easy victories in both 1980 and 1984. I am resolved, that the Republican Party, and the Conservative movement will sit in idle until the day comes when we can find a candidate who once again will inspire a nation to move past partisan politics, and embrace the idea of freedom from government. Republicans this year did not offer a candidate who had this ability. Some would say that Ron Paul was the man preaching freedom and liberty, I agree. Though Dr. Paul was not the only one promoting this idea, and his position on the defining issue of our time (the Iraq War) prevented him from receiving the Republican nomination. Fred Thompson and his inability to articulate his beliefs was his key flaw, and John McCain...well let's not get started on him. Mitt Romney was the closest candidate Republicans had to being "Reagan-esq", however Romney, unlike Ronald Reagan seemed elitist and haughty as a result of his wealth, not to mention his social liberalism while serving as Governor of Massachusetts. Therefore, because of the candidates Republicans put on the primary ballots, we can not expect to win in November. We can hope, but we shouldn't expect to win. John Mccain, while strong on national security and the War in Iraq, is weak (in my opinion) on global warming, taxes, free speech, and many other issues that are important Reagan/Goldwater Conservatives such as myself. However, his weakness on core issues is not his only problem. Sen. McCain refuses to go after Sen. Obama and draw stark, philosophical, substantive differences. Sen. McCain refuses to present "...a banner of bold colors" instead of "pale pastels." This flaw of Sen. McCain will be his downfall come November 4. This is not to say that the Conservative movement is dead, for it is my belief that Sen. McCain does not fully represent the Conservative movement, nor does he represent the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater. 2012 will be our opportunity to once again inspire a nation. Even if John McCain wins the November election, the Conservative movement must continue on to find a candidate and a leader who will restore the mantle of Reagan. A candidate and a leader who believes that, "If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under." A candidate and a leader who believes that, "A people free to choose will always choose peace." A candidate and a leader who believes that, "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." . |
 |  |  |  |  |
| "A people free to choose will always choose peace." Ronald Reagan |