By Tom Quiner
John the Baptist and Jesus
Do you know who John the Baptist is?
The Catholic Church considers him the greatest and last in the line of the prophets.
He was the voice in the wilderness paving the way for Jesus, the Christ.
He did something interesting while still in his mother’s womb. I quote the King James Bible, the book of Luke 1:41:
“And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.”
Scripture suggests personhood for the Baptist even when he was in the womb, that he had an awareness of another person, Jesus, while He was still in his Mother Mary’s womb.
Contemporary Americans in this political cycle should contemplate these two historical figures, both of whom are “giants” in the world of Christianity.
Consider the possibilities:
1. A baby leaping in the womb at the precise moment another fetus is present may be just a fluke of timing. Let’s face it, babies are moving and kicking in the Mom’s womb at six months. John may have let out a kick at just the moment the pregnant Mary walked up. No big deal, right?
2. The writer may have romanticized the whole encounter or made it up.
3. John and Jesus were portrayed as persons while in the womb, their human potential revealed as immediately significant.
It is this third possibility that is at issue today.
My question to you contemporary Americans is: is the human potential of the baby in the womb significant?
Pastor Rick Warren asked then-candidate Barack Obama: “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” The future President was evasive:
“Well, you know,” he said, “I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
In other words, Mr. Obama suggested that human rights are subjective, not inalienable, a view not unlike those held in communist China.
Human rights are conditional and determined by people in power.
Mr. Obama was put to the test on this issue while a state senator in Illinois. The legislature was attempting to pass a law that would require health care workers to save the life of a baby “born alive,” one that survived an abortion.
Without that law, the fetus (now a baby) would be left to die without treatment or comforting, something we wouldn’t even do to a dog.
This is what happened to Melissa Ohden as Quiner’s Diner recounted on Monday. Ms.
Abortion survivor, Melissa Ohden with her little girl
Ohden was aborted when she was a 5-month old fetus.
Iowa law demanded medical treatment, which she received.
Mr. Obama would not have provided that treatment. He recognized the pitfalls of “Born Alive” legislation. He recognized that it would put his pro-abortion political supporters at some risk, because it would become rather challenging to offer human rights to the Melissa Ohdens of the world only if she could survive the abortionist’s assault on her little body.
What is the difference between Melissa Ohden in the womb and Melissa Ohden lying on a table fighting for breath five minutes later?
Tough call. Let’s face it, there is no difference. Mr. Obama said:
“(T)he Equal Protection Clause does not allow someone to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”
There you have it.
By characterizing a statute as “anti-abortion,” Mr. Obama revealed that his political ties to a powerful (and financially supportive) political lobby trumped Melissa Ohden’s life.
Human rights are conditional to this, America’s first African-American, President.
This is where presidential candidate, Rick Santorum comes in. Mr. Santorum has displayed a great deal of courage during his political career in defense of life.
He stakes out politically unpopular positions, and sticks to them, no matter how much it costs him politically.
Mr. Santorum staked out a position similar to one Martin Luther King Jr. stated while the latter was in a Birmingham jail. Mr. King said a law is just if comports with natural law, and it was unjust if it didn’t. He said segregation was unjust because it didn’t comport with natural law.
Mr. Santorum sees a similarity when considering human rights for the pre-born:
“Every person, every child conceived in the womb has a right to life from the moment of conception,” said Santorum. “Why? Because they are human, genetically human, at the moment of conception … so it’s a human life. I don’t think you’ll find a biologist in the world who will say that that is not a human life. The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well, if that person, human life, is not a person, then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say: No, we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.”
Melissa Ohden shared a rather unpleasant experience when speaking to a woman’s group. A representative from a well-known abortion provider was present. Melissa went up to her after speaking and extended her hand. The abortion provider refused to take it, turned her back on her, and walked away.
Ms. Ohden should have been dead. She had no right to be there talking, did she?
The president demurred when questioned by Rick Warren on when does a baby get human rights.
He wasn’t shooting straight with us.
It is up to him, he is saying in a sense. It’s up to men and women like him to determine when human rights shall be dispensed based on politics, not natural law.
On the other hand, Rick Santorum says human rights occur at conception, that it is not up to man, that it is not up to the Party to determine these things. He says that human life is immediately significant regardless of where it resides.
As I wrote in my post yesterday, courageous leaders are a rare commodity. Rick Santorum has it in spades.