By: Margo Diann Nissley-Abshier, ND
This letter was started as a response to your reply to my email of March 21, 2010. We are very busy, as I am sure you are also, and even made a quick trip back to your home state of Montana recently, so I am now finding the time to return to this project. First, I would like to acknowledge your many very conservative stands that I appreciate so very much. Good men like you, who understand what is at stake, must stand up at this time and fight for our nation.
My husband and I appreciate your willingness to serve and to put yourself out there in front of the public, knowing how poorly the media often treats honorable men and the smear campaigns you may encounter. Thomas and I both understand fully why you would want to avoid the controversy on issues of morality like abortion. As they did with my husband, the media seems to delight in maligning anyone who would dare take a moral stand, and their Saul Alinsky tactics attempt to obfuscate the truth and reality via caricature.
We understood the hazards when Thomas took godly moral stands in his bid for election six years ago. More than wanting to win that election, we believed that his entrance into the race could serve to reignite a moral spark in the soul of our nation and facilitate a new national “Awakening” to repentance. Even short of that goal, our firm conviction was that these ideas needed exposure in the market place of public opinion. And, we have been delighted to find that others have linked to our websites and Thomas has been extensively quoted in print. We also felt obligated to provide the public with a “right to choose” and to actually have “a choice and not an echo” of liberalism. We understand you are probably running for this seat to be a positive influence toward saving this nation in its hour of need.
Embracing “tar baby” moral issues can make your bid more difficult. These are legitimate concerns, and if you are running against a candidate who can’t even pass his bar exams, then your best approach may be to promote your intellectual legal arguments on subjects other than moral issues. The default argument most conservatives prefer anyway is that moral decisions should be left to the realm of “states rights.” So, you do have a plausible “out” on moral issues, if that is the route you choose to take.
Second, I want to thank you for your prompt response to my email about the considerations concerning abortion. By readdressing this issue with you, I am not seeking a change in your public position on this issue, nor attempting to obtain any “private” assurances on your position. This is purely an attempt to make sure, in my own mind, that you have thought through this issue fully. So please, humor me a little, as I add a little more to my position on this issue of abortion so that I can feel more confident that you had a chance to fully contemplate various aspects that are less obvious. All we can ever do, when we vote for a candidate, is to trust their character and intellectual integrity and honesty. The whole point of our nation being a Republic, versus a Democracy, is that the public elects men of above average credentials to serve and represent them in Congress on issues that can be quite complex.
In your email response to me, you stated:
“I believe the issue to be extremely complicated for the reason that it pits two individual rights claims against each other and the parties on the two sides have no mind to compromise.”
I assume that you refer to the rights of the mother versus the rights of the unborn child. Technically, the unborn child has no ability to compromise, nor to make the case for their own Declaration of Independence acknowledged, and God-given “right to life.” I like what Kenneth Copeland says; the Declaration of Independence is clear, our “rights” come from God, not from government. In God’s system for society, you have the “right” to do what is right, in His eyes; for both yourself and your family, and you have a duty to do what is “right” toward your neighbors. You never have a “right” to do what is wrong. God’s law says “thou shalt not murder.” Abortion is premeditated murder. Once a child is implanted in the womb and blood is flowing inside it at about 18 days of gestation, it is Biblically “legally” alive. In fact, Mosaic law addressed fetuses in the womb as being of equal value to adults. This nation and its founding documents, especially those of Plymouth Plantation, and the New England states, are very clear; this form of government that we have, is based on Biblical principles and our primary founding document was the Bible, followed by British common law, and Blackstone’s law texts, both of which reflected Biblical truth.
If you mean the pro-life community has no mind to compromise with the slaughter of the innocent, I would agree. How can there be a compromise between life and death, good and evil? What would a compromise between life and death look like? Half dead only means death will win any minute now. Compromise with evil and death only means evil and death will win. Is life so precious that it is worth saving, in any and all instances?
Is life a gift from God and do we honor God by appreciating and honoring this most magnificent miraculous gift of His creation? In the Darwinian approach to the source of life, the elephant on the table is: How did even the simplest organic structure ever make the leap to attain to the level of being alive? After a whole lifetime of attempting to justify naturalistic processes for the origins of life, Sir Fred Hoyle, finally had to admit, the leap and jump from dead matter to life was too huge, for naturalistic processes to bring life into being. He proved mathematically that life could not have evolved as described by evolution. The complexity of even a single living cell was so fathomless, and all the parts needed the other parts to function. And there was no way to make a dead cell, with all its irreducible complexity intact, live again. His only conclusion was that life must have come from outer space. This theory strains credulity with questions like; what processes could have produced life elsewhere when they can’t explain it for earth where life exists in abundance and is it plausible that life could survive the cold and vacuum of space and also survive the descent through our atmosphere? Darwin’s own theory of evolution states that if the cell turns out to be a very complex structure, which it is, amazingly so, then all bets are off for small changes and simple cellular structures just coming to life on their own.
As George Washington said:
It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe, without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to reason without arriving at a Supreme Being. Religion is as necessary to reason, as reason is to religion. The one cannot exist without the other. A reasoning being would lose his reason, in attempting to account for the great phenomena of nature, had he not a Supreme Being to refer to.
I heard Mike Huckabee being interviewed on the radio one recent Sunday morning, and he related a story of his daughter Sarah, who he took to a Holocaust exhibit when she was very young. She wrote in the guest book at the end of the exhibit, “Why didn’t somebody do something to stop this?” Someday, people will look back on the 50 million babies brutally and savagely dismembered in America and the possibly billions more around the world and say the same thing. Before the throne of Almighty God, I hope you and I will be able to hold our heads up high and proudly acknowledge that we did something to stop this modern-day holocaust.
I like what Dinesh D’Souza wrote in Letters to a Young Conservative, Chapter 25: Speaking as a Former Fetus….: page 190 “Lincoln, the Republican, disagreed [with Douglas’s assumption that “free” states had a right to choose slavery or slave free state status]. Lincoln argued that choice cannot be exercised without reference to the content of the choice. How can it make sense to permit a person to choose to enslave (or kill) another human being? How can self-determination be invoked to deny others self-determination? How can choice be invoked to negate choice? At its deepest level, Lincoln was saying that the legitimacy of freedom as a political principle is itself dependent on a doctrine of natural rights that arises out of a specific understanding of human nature and human dignity.”
Do women have legitimate choices over what they do with their bodies? Of course, they do. A woman can choose to have sex or not to have sex. If she chooses to have sex, then she can also take protective measures to prevent pregnancy, such as condoms, or birth control pills, IUD’s, cervical caps, spermicidal agents, douching, etc., etc. But, once a child is conceived and implanted, shouldn’t that child’s life and that child’s rights become paramount? There are many childless couples who have great difficulty adopting, who would gladly raise that tiny gift from God. Like my husband said in his website, it is a sacred privilege to honor and serve God with the “use” of your body, long enough for that child to have a chance at viability and to fully realize their own life, their own rights and to have the freedom to make their own choices.
I fully support the several charitable institutions that provide support for young women in this circumstance, especially, so they have no regrets later in life, for ending the life of their child. I know several adopted children who, once adults, sought out their birth parents. And, although at first, the birth parents were upset at being discovered, once the original shock had time to settle in, suddenly, family members from both sides of the family were thrilled to welcome back into their clan, the one given up for adoption. Seeing the children of these now adult children, who had been given up for adoption, seemed to be a real ice breaker for everyone involved. The children of the aborted will never be seen or known, just like their aborted “parents” are never acknowledged in our “polite” PC society. The sacredness of life, and our unalienable right to it, should never be in question. And, I do believe that we will reap what we have sown. Should we not make every effort to choose life, sow to life and honor life? In doing so we also honor the Creator of that life, who deserves our praise and honor for his goodness toward us.
So, I thank you for granting me more of your precious time, to share these thoughts with you. I can only offer a caution to you, that the American people will no longer condone candidates who run on a conservative platform and then vote for big government programs that oppose the Constitution, and who vote for out of control spending. The American people overwhelmingly want this Obamacare bill and these flagrantly wasteful “stimulus” and “jobs” bills and “bailout” programs repealed. The American people are now adamantly demanding candidates who are true to their word, will keep their campaign promises, will not buckle under the corrupting pressures of the political atmosphere in DC, and who will retain and act upon the conservative stands they took when running for office. Our freedoms, our liberties, our nation, and its Constitution are in such imminent peril and time is running out for good men to do what is necessary to right the ship of state before it capsizes and sinks. We hope and pray you are one of those unique men, born for such a time as this. Best wishes for your appearance at the Tea Party event in Roseburg.