Thursday, September 9, 2010

Plain speak

Sins can be couched in such palatable terms as to make them sound virtuous. For example, a while back I wrote to one of my state representatives about my opposition to abortion and asked for clarification on his stance on this issue. I received a letter in reply, part of which stated,  "I would not presume to impinge on another's right to choose."  I guess this is the equivalent of a House spanking because, of course, the insinuation is that I would. Presume, I mean. I thought about this for a few minutes and decided he was mistaken. I would not presume to impinge on the rights of others....I was merely impinging upon their wrongs.

What struck me as absurd about this letter is that the government often infringes upon our rights. They have forgotten that they are called to serve, not to be served. I suggest our state representatives take another look at   the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these words to be self-evident" may be a good place to start ( also note "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life...." if you would).  And no, I'm not the author of this document . You may go here for that.

So Mr. P.H., you have failed to pass the litmus test of humanity in your failure to defend life. Therefore, I have removed the title Honorable from your name - for abortion is anything but honorable.

8 comments:

  1. We only have "rights" at all because they're bestowed on us by a higher authority. Some rights are God-given, but most rights are given by the state. If the senator is implying that women have a God-given right to abortion which the government is not able to change, then he's saying that God must have bestowed that right. Correct?

    I agree with you entirely: the more someone tries to say something in a complicated way, the more likely the person wants you not to name it for real. Or more to the point: if the language confuses you, it's because someone wants you confused.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, there are God-given rights and there are legal rights. The right to life is inalienable and not subject to change because it comes from the Highest Authority.

    They HAVE TO confuse the language because they cannot name it for real themselves. Their consciences do not allow for it. Mr. Hodes would not have written to me and said "I would not presume to impinge on anothers right to murder a baby." This would have been unacceptable to his conscience. But if you use the terms "fetus" and "freedom of choice" it negates the person and focuses on freedom instead.
    God doesn't play word games.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here, Here Mary! Well said. What about the rights of the innocent? How sad that the place where a child should be the safest, a mother's womb, is not a safe haven.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How are you, Nanette? Thank you for your comment. You're right, a mother's womb should be a safe haven. My hope is that we become a nation that embraces life again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You make excellent points here! My eyes are opened to pay closer attention to complicated wording-it holds many errors!

    ReplyDelete
  6. People try to accentuate the positive so they don't look bad. Pro and choice serves up abortion under the guise of good.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Good for you, Mary. We need to get as many pro-life legislators as possible and drive the others from office. Jesus cleaned out the temple. Let us clean out our country.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Barb,
    Yes, that would be great! I have to say that finding pro-life life legislators can be a bit like finding a needle in a haystack though. I never thought I'd have to say that. No wonder people say "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." It's true in many cases.

    ReplyDelete