by Laurie “Blondie” Pruser-Stockman
The Declaration of Independence specifically states that the inalienable rights of anyone are the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness; the Constitution of the United States of America does not but it should, in my opinion.
It is argued that there is a protection in the Constitution that protects a person's life, and there is. It is the 5th amendment "No person shall....Be deprived of Life, Liberty or property, without due process of the law..." So is the problem here defining a person, not life?
We need a constitutional amendment (yes, I know that would be time consuming but it would be appropriate) that clearly states that the Right to LIFE is a right to everyone regardless of age, physical, mental or developmental state, until that person does something that requires that the law removes that right from them. It might be more prudent to actually define when a person becomes a person but there in lies the argument.
Let's address this question first: What if anything should force anyone to relinquish their right to LIFE? When they take another's LIFE? When they take their Liberty and/or affect their means of obtaining Happiness?
I did a bit of investigating to find out what laws address this issue.
• http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-offenses-other-murder
It seems that the aggravated rape of a child is a resounding variable in several states including TEXAS, South Carolina as well as the US Military.
• http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/aggravating-factors-capital-punishment-state
Here a repeating theme is when a murder is committed and the murder is especially heinous, atrocious cruel or depraved *or involved torture
But what are the FEDERAL LAWS that say that you relinquish your right to LIFE?
• http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty
The Federal Government views your right to life to be effected in a broader sense. Murder while smuggling of “aliens”, drive-by shootings in drug related crimes, espionage, transportation of explosives or the destruction of government property or foreign and interstate commerce, murder of a judge or cop, or first degree murder.
What is first degree murder? In most states, it is defined as a killing that was premeditated (planned). . And of course treason and murder that is the result of terrorism.
So now, I present to you this to deliberate: When does the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness end?
Herman Cain has said. . "You can pursue happiness as long as you do not infringe upon someone else’s liberty. You can have liberty as long as you do not infringe upon someone else’s life." * 2004 and various times since.
The words in our Declaration of Independence say "Pursuit of Happiness". . . not the Right to be Happy. But Liberty needs no definition nor does LIFE.
If you are not alive you have no right to Liberty or Right to Pursue (obtain, search out, work to gain) Happiness. And if you are not alive you are no longer a person who can have their rights taken from them.
So now, I present to you this to deliberate: When does the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness end?
Herman Cain has said. . "You can pursue happiness as long as you do not infringe upon someone else’s liberty. You can have liberty as long as you do not infringe upon someone else’s life." * 2004 and various times since.
The words in our Declaration of Independence say "Pursuit of Happiness". . . not the Right to be Happy. But Liberty needs no definition nor does LIFE.
If you are not alive you have no right to Liberty or Right to Pursue (obtain, search out, work to gain) Happiness. And if you are not alive you are no longer a person who can have their rights taken from them.
This brings us to the much discussed question, “When does life begin?”.
I do not understand the confusion and why this is consistently being argued as I have known since my very first lesson in a biology class that scientist maintain that living things have five (5) basic characteristics.
1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce
5. All living things have the ability to adapt.
The unborn child has all of these abilities and characteristics. So is a baby in the womb of its mother a life/person or not?
1. It is a very highly organized being from conception on.
2. It has the ability to acquire the necessary components to grow.
3. The baby certainly responds to its environment within the womb. It moves when stimulated. It even attempts to make more room for itself by pushing, turning and stretching within the safety of its mother’s body which was designed for the very purpose of providing it a secure environment in which to live.
4. It has the ability to reproduce; it reproduces through mitosis to become a fully functioning human and a female baby is born with all the ova that she will ever have in her lifetime.
5.It has the ability to adapt; It begins life in a sac of amniotic fluid within its mother’s womb and upon birth it begins to adapt to life outside of the womb.
I believe that the unborn child has met the 5 basic criteria for being classified as Living and therefore since its DNA is shared with a human woman and man who both created that life, whether intentionally or unintentionally; it is a human or person. So that person must not be denied its Right to LIFE.
I do not see any incidence where an unborn baby could be found guilty of any crime which legitimizes a reason to have its Right to Life ended. . . not one.
Herman Cain has stated that he is “100% pro-life, period”. “Life begins at conception.”
But how will he govern as President of the United States of America? Mr. Cain realizes the limitations placed upon the executive branch and the President in particular, by the Constitution of the United States of America. He has stated that as President, he has no authority to order a person not to seek an abortion. He is correct. There is no such provision in our Constitution. He has chosen to live within the fundamental laws which give our government its powers as 3 independent branches instead of grandstanding ad making promises outside of those laws and the scope of the power of the Executive branch of our Federal government.
So as President, what would President Cain do? He will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. “…Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.” Mr. Cain goes on to state that he will oppose any abortion funding; he will veto legislation that funds Planned Parenthood and he will do everything possible “consistent with his constitutional role as President” to advance the culture of life. *Letter dated October 21, 2011 to supporters.
Again, I feel that a Constitutional amendment to specifically state that the unborn child has the inalienable Right to Life is necessary. That law would follow the original intent of our founding fathers. The unborn child’s Right to Life is simply an Inalienable (Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred) Right.
I believe that Herman Cain is pro-life and will, with the powers granted him through the Constitution of the United States of America, truly promote the rights of innocent babies to Life so that they can have Liberty and Pursue Happiness.
