Because of the authority that the Bible has in my life, I hold to the Bible as being the supreme document as to all areas of life. Therefore, I want to take a moment to point out what the Bible says about life: when it begins, when it ends, who is its Author and Arbiter.
Some Bible passages that many recognize as identifying when life begins would include:
- Psalm 139:15-16, which speaks about God fashioning the Psalmist in the womb--before birth;
- Jeremiah 1:4-5, which speaks about God knowing Jeremiah before Jeremiah was being formed in his mother's womb;
- The use of the Greek word brephos in Luke 1:41-45, where brephos is translated "babe," or "baby." In these verses, the "baby" (who in this case was John the Baptist) was in his mother's womb. He was unborn at this point.
- The use of the same Greek word brephos in Luke 2:12-16, this time used by the angel Gabriel when announcing to the shepherds that they will find a Baby lying in a manger, and then the actual discovery by the shepherds of the Baby lying in the manger. In these verses, the "Baby" (who was Jesus) was born, living outside the womb.
Now, what about when life ends? The Bible has something to say about that as well. Of the myriad of passages which speak to God being the Author of our days, let me highlight a couple:
- In Psalm 39:4-5, the Psalmist indicates that God not only knows the measures of his days, but is also the Maker of those days;
- In Psalm 139:16, we find that God has written down fashioned for us before any of them had transpired!
The National Republican Party Platform on the Life Issue
The 2012 National Republican Party Platform includes this statement concerning life:
"Faithful to the 'self-truths' enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children...We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and the infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide."Pretty clear where the national party stands, don't you think?
The California Republican Party Platform on the Life Issue
So what about the California Republicans, where do they stand on the issue of life?
Like the national Republican convention, the California Republicans adopted a platform statement in 2012. That platform statement includes the following (in big, bold, letters, I might add):
"The California Republican Party is the party that protects innocent life because we believe life begins at conception and ends at natural death."Wow. The state GOP platform is even more clear and more succinct.
Based upon his statement on the issues under the category of Family and Constitution, Kirk is rather clear on his position: He shares the position of both the national and state Republican party (as well as the biblical position) that life begins at conception and ends at natural death. If elected, he would vote for bills that added greater protection to this, the most precious liberty we have: life.
What is interesting is that his Republican opponent, Carl DeMaio, supports "a woman's right to choose;" codespeak, in my opinion, for not holding to a biblical definition of life beginning at conception and ending at natural death. On the issue page of his website, he attempts to triangulate by explaining that "the reality is that most Americans desire to protect life and do not view abortion as just another form of birth control." Sounds nice, right?
Yet at the top of that page, the website uses the following DeMaio pullquote:
"I will listen to my constituents and vote my conscience regardless of the political consequence."So let me see if I can connect the dots...
- Most Americans desire to protect life;
- Thus, most people in the California 52nd desire to protect life;
- Carl supports "a woman's right to choose;"
- So Carl will listen to most of his constituents and still vote for laws that will end the innocent lives of the unborn
It seems obvious to me that Kirk Jorgensen is in line with the national and state Republicans on the issue of human life sanctity, and Carl DeMaio is not. So, I can conclude that the Republican party would endorse Kirk Jorgensen over Carl DeMaio, right?
The San Diego County Republican Party's Central Committee endorsed...wait for it...Carl DeMaio.
Why is that a big deal? Money. Lots of money used to get a candidate's message out. Thanks to this endorsement, Carl DeMaio has lots and lots of money...a lot more than does Kirk Jorgensen.
Where's the California Republicans? The Republicans across the nation?
They defer to the local guys' pick. The local guys are supposed to "know."
Those local guys? That would be the San Diego County Republican Central Committee.
For the San Diego County Republican Central Committee, they believe that Mr. DeMaio has a better chance of unseating the incumbent, Democrat Scott Peters, than does Mr. Jorgensen.
For the county Republican Central Committee, winning elections (and controlling the flow of money) is more important than the real role of government, which is to protect the liberties of its citizens.
Sorry, but I don't play that game. I could not give a rip about whether someone in Congress or in the Senate or in the Assembly is a Republican or a Democrat or something else. If they don't get this issue right, they don't get my support.
This is but one reason I support Kirk Jorgensen for Congress. I have more; I'll be sharing them later.