Abortion and the rules that have stood the test of time

By Dave Andrusko

On Tuesday NRLC President Carol Tobias wrote a fascinating column she titled, “President Donald Trump, a Man of His Word.” It is an extended tribute to a man who has already done a great deal for unborn babies.

Mrs. Tobias quotes from an op-ed that then-candidate Trump wrote which appeared January 23, 2016. I would like to include a few sentences he wrote before and after the section Mrs. Tobias quoted and offer a couple of thoughts. The op-ed is truly a fascinating and very revealing piece that you should read in its entirety:

I build things. There is a process involved in building things. We tap into a lot of disciplines with engineering being one of the most important. The rules for putting structures together are as strict as are the rules of physics. These rules have stood the test of time and have become the path to putting together structures that endure and are beautiful. America, when it is at its best, follows a set of rules that have worked since our Founding. One of those rules is that we, as Americans, revere life and have done so since our Founders made it the first, and most important, of our “unalienable” rights.

There are (in this case engineering) rules that stand the test of time because they reflect r-e-a-l-i-t-y. But there are other rules that in their own way are “as strict as the rules of physics.”

You withdraw protection from one category of vulnerable people, and the door is open to finding another one. Why? Because a negative principle has been established: being human is not enough to guarantee you equal protection under the law.

When I finished this last paragraph, something else jumped into my mind that goes back to (egad) 1984.

Historian Daniel J. Boorstin at the time was Librarian of Congress. He wrote a letter of transmittal and text for the 50-page “Books in Our Future” report to Congress in 1984 in which he wrote, “Ours is a Culture of the Book. Our democracy is built on books and reading. …We must face and defeat the twin menaces of illiteracy and aliteracy–the inability to read and the lack of the will to read–if our citizens are to remain free and qualified to govern themselves.”

Application? A certain percentage of people looking at abortion simply lack the emotional, intellectual, or moral skills to “read” brutality and violence. They are, if you will, the illiterates.

Others are like Boorstin’s aliterates who (in his example) could read the instructions on the medicine bottle but deliberately chose not to. Such people have the equipment to see abortion’s monstrous face but have consciously made the decision not to.

There is, perhaps, little we can do for the latter group, although we never, ever give up on anyone. But the former—they simply need to be educated to the beauty of unborn life, to the responsibilities we assume to little human beings we have brought into existence, and to the law written on every human heart that these are our children.