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?
Our Nation is a democracy, which is a representative form of government. Acknowledging that there are differences in belief systems from region to region, we have divided our States and Counties up into districts to try and help elect a representative, who bests represents the needs and desires of that area. Although flawed in some respects, that is the general idea.
So, one would think that a candidate running for election in a selected district would try to best show himself a good representation of that district. Not so, for one career politician, who is running in the Republican primary for U.S. Congressional District Two. This man seems to be confusing who is representing whom?
Kevin Raye recently announced his candidacy, again, for Congress in CD 2. This will be his third attempt. In the last Republican primary for CD 2, Raye was only able to muster 51% of the vote against a no-name first time candidate. Moreover, 13% decided neither candidate was worth voting for, stayed home and didn’t vote. In only three counties, other than his own, was the former Senator able to garner more than 50% of the primary vote. Not a good omen for a candidate who claimed he could win the general election.
In the general election, Raye fared worse in his second attempt than he did in his first, losing by a larger margin. It seems name recognition did not work to the benefit of the State Senator from Washington County the second time around. The more they saw of him, the less they liked him. Kevin Raye lost every single county other than his own in the general election. Yes, even the historical Republican bastion of Piscataquis County chose perennial wallflower Mike Michaud as a stronger candidate over Kevin Raye. Many officials refused to carry Raye’s signs in parades fearing the backlash they would receive from the decidedly conservative crowds in the Second Congressional District.
Which brings up another interesting point. The Rayes have been very public about their support and promotion of abortion. They support Emily’s List and The Wish List; two organizations that zealously promote abortion and candidates that follow this mantra. Yet, Kevin Raye feels that somehow an overwhelmingly Pro-Life 2nd District should set aside their belief system and allow him to represent them. Who is representing whom? And this represents the 2nd District in what way? These are just few reasons why there is such tough sledding for Raye outside of Washington County.
Kevin Raye has done everything he can do to disenfranchise the voters of the CD 2. His one major political accomplishment outside of his county is to be the first Republican to lose an election in Piscataquis County, the Red County, in a very long time. It is easy to see, after a look at all the facts, that there is not a Raye of hope that this candidate represents the interests of our district.