Science has produced another marvel. It has created an artificial womb that can be used to provide a more suitable environment for preemie babies who cannot stay in the mother’s natural womb. It’s just one more way we as a race have advanced to better protect life.
But that’s were the confusion starts. What is life and when is it worth saving? If it is not viable life, then why expend the money and resources to preserve non-viable life when those resources can used upon viable life or more important issues.
For years now, the field of medical science has been able to perform life saving procedures for children within the womb surrounded by amniotic fluid. When the child later is born, the baby has little to no scarring from the procedure. Amazing to some.
But is it life saving? The same child in that womb that went under the surgical knife for a “life saving procedure” could have it’s life terminated by a surgeon’s knife if the Mother had a change of heart about the viability of that child’s life. Is it life? Where and when is the standard for life? Is there a fixed point we can use as litmus, a mooring?
Our Founders called it “The Quickening” and declared the taking of child from the moment of “The Quickening” as murder. It was the soonest they could know with the technology of the day, when the Mother knew she was with child. We know much sooner but we feel, also, that we know much better then our Founding Fathers.
The argument today is that the baby’s life is not viable until it is born, so much later than “The Quickening”. That’s the premise of the Pro-Choice argument to validate and reason the taking of the life or the “goo” that is in the womb. These arguments certainly call into question the Founder’s claim that we are “endowed with certain unalienable rights”. If life is only a matter of our perception then so are the rights as explained in the Founding Documents.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness endowed by our Creator is the premise of the Constitution. Thus the desire for such and the right to such is wired in us at our conception, or our beginning, an endowment from on High according to the Framers. But was it conception or is it perception?
So if life does not begin in the womb neither do our rights. So when do our rights begin? Is it when our life is proven viable? Who is the final authority on viability? Who now validates my achievement of rights?
Whole civilizations have risen and fallen based on the philosophy that some life is viable and others are not. Whose perception of life can be so trusted as to validate and invalidate the existence of life? Is it the medical field or government?
Both our political parties have conceded to perception rather than conception. Democrats have declared that only once a child is born is it living, except when a Doctor is performing a life saving procedure in the womb, a child has been killed in the womb because of a accident, or now that we have artificial wombs to save the life of preemie babies. Republicans can’t decide what they believe until its a few months out from election and the whole GOP suddenly gets Religion. They have personal beliefs but there are the laws of land.
So law cancels life? Or is it life? If it’s not, then why are we saving it? If life is just your perception based on what you believe, and Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness were never endowed in the first place, than this great Republic is based upon a fraudulent idea. With all of our advances, the question still is simple but the more stark in its clarity: Is it a “life saving” procedure or “goo saving” procedure?
They called him “The Junk Man” because his hobby was to pick up junk and restore it. For Robert Godwin Sr., the satisfaction of restoring all things junk was married into the life of leisure that retirement brings, which often found the former foundry worker sitting behind a fishing pole at his favorite spot. What comes to the fore as the stories continue to surface of this man is that above all he was a man of unparalleled devotion to God, his family, and his fellow man.
It is said the one man’s junk is another man’s treasure. In an instant this past Easter weekend, one man’s junk senselessly snuffed out the treasure of the Godwin family, their Father. As a Nation watched in horror as the ever burgeoning evil of our society retched itself once again upon the innocent, somehow in the midst of the rage a flicker of hope has emerged.
Robert Godwin Sr. has left behind the greatest treasure a man could hope for, the legacy of a God-fearing family. A family who inexplicably could love the junk that destroyed their Father and in his example seek to restore it. To love the unlovable and forgive the unthinkable is the message of Easter in that while we were yet sinners, junk, Christ died for us so that we could be a treasure to a King.
In all that is darkness around us, our foundations crumbling to dust a midst the disdain of future generations and as we arm ourselves against the ever encroaching night, let not despair overwhelm us for I have seen a beacon of hope on the streets of Cleveland in a junk man’s treasure. If there still remains a people who can love in the face of hate then perhaps the America of old still lives. I hold up Robert Godwin Sr as the standard for all that is good still in my beloved Nation. I hold him up perhaps, yes, in desperation as the shining example of the greatest treasure a man can have, a Godly legacy.
It seems my recent poem has caused many to have an attack of the giggles. Perhaps they think its unmanly to write a poem…or…something. If so, then by all means stay away from such girlish pursuits as The Iliad , Beowulf, or even that silly little National Anthem of ours. We wouldn’t want to clutter your “open” mind. Just keep that wind tunnel of yours wide open and clear of any obstruction between both your ears and behind those vacant eyes.
Once again let me remind people, that my reason for the angst is not the picking of berries blue and red or the foraging of fiddleheads. Uh-oh, did I just rhyme again? Get over it! It’s the lack of respect for private property and ambivalence to the double standard conservatives portray.
Did you know that long before our foraging and hunting traditions here in Maine, our Founding Fathers put a high premium on private property? Yes, so much so they were willing to die for it. They challenged the most powerful Nation in the world at that time, Great Britain, for Life, Liberty, and Private Property.
Oh, I can hear giggles the more. “Idiot! Not only does he write poems but he screwed up the most famous line in American History!”(giggle snort) I am well aware the line reads Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but do you know that line was originally drafted Life, Liberty, and Private Property.
I’m sure there are different reasons why it was changed. I can imagine they realized that one is not necessarily born endowed with private property, hence, the pursuit. Still, this shows that our Founders placed private property on a very high pedestal, a thing to be protected.
Much of the anger by conservatives here in Maine against landowners who asked for this foraging bill is really seeded in the fact that most of these major landowners are of a liberal persuasion. They have bought up large tracks of land and have begun to block hunting , foraging, and recreation on their land. Yes, it makes me angry, too.
But the fact of the matter remains, they still own the land. Still, the anger remains and the desire to use or block the legislature from defending their rights because they appose our will and our want seems, ahem, poetic justice. The question remains, what of the Constitution?
According to the Constitution, private property rights trump all including the Bill of Rights. For example, when I was campaigning during the Q3 referendum if a homeowner took exception to what I was saying they could order me off their property. I had to go and exercise my 1st Amendment rights elsewhere. If a homeowner objects to my sidearm on their property and demands I remove myself, I need to remove myself and exercise my 2nd Amendment rights elsewhere. The rights of the private landowner overrule our rights to hunting, foraging, and recreating. So take your various pursuits of happiness and pursue them elsewhere.
Sadly, it seems we are willing to preach the Constitution when it works in our favor but trample it when it doesn’t. The issue is more than foraging and hunting traditions, berries and fiddleheads. The question should be asked: Is the Constitution the foundation of the Republic for all citizens or just a weapon to wield against our opponents to win elections?
Whenever I write against this double standard among so-called conservatives, the immediate retaliation is, “No! We are going to teach them a lesson!” or “Now, they can know what it feels like!” I have been a conservative all my life but this double standard on so many issues, not just this, is not conservatism. It’s something I don’t recognize. The politics of retaliation and me first, the future be dammed. It seems we are not interested in winning elections to make the Republic stronger but simply to gain the power to inflict our double standard on our opponents, payback. And faster the pendulum swings…