I was interested in the new Federalist Party, and I offered to help them craft a position on abortion to add to their platform. That was back in January, and I never even received a response. Today, I decided to search their website for the term "abortion" to see if any of my ideas had been incorporated. What I found instead was an unfortunate reason to oppose this new party that seemed to have so much potential.
As part of their answer to the question "Why start a new party rather than apply our strategy to a preexisting one?" The Federalist Party included this statement about abortion:
"It would be easier to apply our strategy to a smaller (or new) party than for one that has allowed itself to be tainted by stances on abortion..."
This explains why the Federalist Party never responded to my offer to help them craft a platform position on abortion. They don't want their platform to be "tainted" by such issues. I suppose that if this were 1850 instead of 2017, this party would not want their platform to be "tainted" by a position on the issue of slavery either.
One of my primary complaints against the Republican Party is that they consistently and sometimes even vehemently refuse to follow the position against abortion that is contained in their platform. How could I possibly be comfortable joining a party that prefers to take no position at all on the government sanctioned murder of 3,000 children every day?
I don't care how many other issues the Federalist Party gets right, and I don't care how successful they are in growing their party. The fact that they refuse to take a stand against abortion is a deal breaker for me. I will not be joining this new party.
By the way, here is the position on abortion that I recommended to the new Federalists:
Are Prenatal Children Entitled to the Equal Protection of Persons Under the Law?
Yes. The right to life is an unalienable right, and that necessarily means that it is present with every human being regardless of whether we recognize that right or not. The slavery which was practiced in our nation’s past was wrong – not because the government eventually said that it was wrong. Slavery was wrong because the slaves were human beings, and thus they had an inherent right to liberty regardless of whether the government recognized that right or not. As human beings, each and every slave had a right to liberty from the moment that he came into existence. Our government failed in its duty to protect that right, but the right itself was always there.
The right to life is just as much an inalienable right as the right to liberty. The abortion that our nation currently practices is wrong – not because we say that it is wrong. Abortion is wrong because prenatal children are human beings, and thus they have an inherent right to life regardless of whether the government recognizes that right or not. As human beings, each and every prenatal child has a right to life from the moment that he comes into existence. Our government has failed in its duty to protect that right, but the right itself is still there.
Some may ask: What about the hard cases like abortions for rape, incest or to save the life of the mother? Once we realize that the prenatal child has the same unalienable right to life as a born child, it becomes much easier to determine what to do in these “hard cases.” Any solution that would be wrong to apply to a born child would be wrong to apply to a prenatal child.
For example: to kill a born child because his father was a rapist would be murder, thus to kill a prenatal child because his father was a rapist is also murder. Therefore, abortion cannot be permitted in cases of rape. To kill a born child because his great uncle is also his father would be murder. Thus, to kill a prenatal child because his great uncle is also his father would also be murder. Therefore, abortion cannot be permitted in cases of incest. The solution to these two “hard cases” is immediately apparent once we realize that the prenatal child has the same unalienable right to life as a born child.
But what about those cases in which the mother’s life is in danger? We can apply the same reasoning in these cases as well. If a doctor has two patients and there is a possibility that one of them will die at some point in the near future, it would be murder for him to kill one of his patients now in order to lower the potential of his other patient dying in the future. Thus, to kill a prenatal child simply because there is a possibility that his mother will die if the pregnancy continues would also be murder.
On the other hand, if a doctor is in a triage situation where he has more than one patient in immediate danger of death, his duty is not to save the life of every patient but rather to do his best to save as many as he can. He cannot kill any patient in such a situation, but he is not held guilty of murder if one of his patients dies while he is saving the life of another. Thus, if a pregnant woman’s life is in immediate danger, her doctor can administer necessary medical aid which does not involve him killing the prenatal child. If the doctor is only able to save one of the two lives, then he is not guilty of murder.
Every human being – both those that have been born and those that are still within the womb – has an unalienable right to life. Our government has a duty to protect that right to life. Therefore, all prenatal children are entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law.