Pro-Life

Why Does a Civilian Need an AR-15?
AR-15 Gun

(Photo Credit: USA Today)

You can be a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and not support civilians having access to an assault weapon like an AR-15. A weapon of war like an AR-15 isn’t needed for killing deer and squirrels, so don’t say assault weapons are necessary for hunting. Hunters will be successful without using assault weapons. If you’re really serious about ending mass shootings, then you will reach the responsible conclusion that federal legislation banning the sale and possession of assault weapons for civilians is required.

Err on the Side of Life

Although I’m not a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and not an active hunter, I’m a passionate champion of the 2nd Amendment. In fact, I agree with much of what the NRA has to say about gun rights. Also, as a pro-life individual, I believe in promoting the right to life, a culture of life. With an earnest pro-life advocacy, I, reminded of what President George W. Bush once stated in a different context, choose to “err on the side of life.” To “err on the side of life” in the current gun rights/gun control national debate means, from my perspective, to take whatever actions possible to save as many lives as possible.      

Assault Weapons Aren’t Necessary for Hunting and Personal Defense 

Since assault weapons aren’t essential to hunting and defending one’s person and property, these weapons shouldn’t be available to civilians—they should be reserved for the battlefield. Plenty of powerful guns will still be available to civilians. It’s not, therefore, a zany idea to advance federal legislation banning the sale and possession of assault weapons for civilians.

Conclusion

Democrats and Republicans need to exercise moral and political courage and face the gun lobby, the NRA head-on to foster a true culture of life in America. It’s going to be more and more difficult to attempt to articulate right to life positions while still permitting civilians to purchase and possess assault weapons.

If you’re going to be pro-life, then be pro-life regarding all issues.

Dr. Antonio Maurice Daniels

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Abolishing Abortion: How You Can Play a Part in Ending the Greatest Evil of Our Day by Frank Pavone: A Short Book Review
Abolishing Abortion

(Photo Credit: Booklook Bloggers)

In Abolishing Abortion: How You Can Play a Part in Ending the Greatest Evil of Our Day, Reverend Frank Pavone offers a comprehensive and aggressive approach to eliminating abortion in America. Instead of allowing churches and individual Christians to succumb to the argument that they should refrain from engaging in politics, including politics related to abortion, Pavone challenges them to fight vociferously and passionately for the lives of the unborn. For the author, Christians concerned about ending abortion have the power to reform how government works, and this will require a harmonious banding together of churches and Christians committed to exercising their moral authority and who refuse to have their voices silenced.

Although pro-choice readers will not like this book, pro-life readers will be moved to act in ways that are more coordinated and intentional. In the extant political and cultural climate, too many pro-life Christians have lost faith in seeing a day when abortion no longer exists in America. Pavone makes a convincing argument that a ban on abortion is very much possible. He posits that abortion will end when pro-life Christians and churches unite to demand a reversal of Roe v. Wade. As the book argues successfully, it is essential to elect politicians who sincerely commit to appointing and confirming pro-life judges to sit on courts at every level. I encourage pro-life Christians to read this book and employ it as a tool to save the lives of the unborn.

Booklook Bloggers provided me with a complimentary copy of this book in exchange for my honest review.

Dr. Antonio Maurice Daniels

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Open Letter to Todd Akin
Todd Akin

I need education about rape.

Dear Todd Akin:

Your recent comments discussing “legitimate rape” are offensive to rape victims and survivors and women in general.  While you have stated that you misspoke, your comments have placed you in a position where you cannot be an effective candidate for the Republican Party and cause many women to lack confidence in your judgment now and if you were to become a U.S. senator.  When you make comments that are not carefully articulated in the public domain, you’re not always going to be given an opportunity to revise and extend your remarks, especially comments made on the campaign trail.  Comments made on the campaign trail are not always given the “revise and extend” rights those in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate enjoy.  You need to step aside and do what’s best for America, the state of Missouri and the Republican Party.

If you continue to stay in the U.S. Senate race in Missouri, you will demonstrate that you’re not committed to the interests of the American people but are more concerned with your personal ambitions.  While I can understand your desire to want to serve as a U.S. senator, you cannot let this desire prevent the people of Missouri from having a campaign about substantive issues rather than about “legitimate rape.”  To make such outrageous comments about rape, you prove you’re not ready to represent Missouri in the U.S. Senate.

The comments you made about rape are absurd.  You will have other ways in which you can serve the American people and you will have future opportunities to run for elected office.  This is not the time for you, however.  Your word choice has cost you an opportunity to win the U.S. Senate seat.  In your attempt to evince just how pro-life you are, you went too far.  Although you have some great ideas and positions on other issues, you will be linked to your “legitimate rape” comments.  Do the American people a favor and drop out of the campaign.

Please drop out of the campaign immediately!

Sincerely,

Antonio Maurice Daniels

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Billboard about Abortion in Arkansas Draws Charges of Racism

The above image is of a billboard that has been put up in the state of Arkansas by Arkansas Right to Life, a pro-life organization, and other national pro-life organizations. While Arkansas Right to Life and other pro-life organizations are well within their right to put up this message that speaks against the outrageous number of Black babies being aborted each year, I think that they have overstepped the standards of decency in the way in which they have elected to convey their message. Having “Black & Unwanted” and the picture of the face of a Black baby underneath it can cause many to think that this is a racist billboard. Personally, I am pro-life and am familiar with national Right to Life organizations, including Arkansas Right to Life, and I know that the dominant membership that composes these organizations is not racist. While I am sure that the billboard was well-intentioned, I contend that this particular billboard should be taken down by Arkansas Right to Life and the other national pro-life organizations who paid for it.

I do strongly agree with these pro-life organizations about the need to dramatically reduce the horrible number of Black babies that are being aborted annually. Arkansas Right to Life should have selected more racially and culturally sensitive language to convey a tremendously vital message. When one thinks about the specific racist history of the state of Arkansas (a state that I happen to love so dearly), the fact that Arkansas Right to Life and most other pro-life organizations are composed primarily of White people, and that “Black and Unwanted” brings many African-Americans’ memories back to the days of Jim and Jane Crow, it becomes a really easy decision to remove the billboard. While I am sure that Arkansas Right to Life wanted to “push the envelope,” and Revolutionary Paideia can certainly appreciate you for being willing to “push the envelope”), I think that this particular billboard does not communicate the type of message that is ultimately beneficial for pro-lifers’ cause.

As pro-lifers, we do not have to rely on highly controversial language and tactics to spread our message—we only need to disseminate the facts. All we need to do is give people the numbers about how many abortions occur annually. This billboard would have been more effective by simply listing how many Black babies have been aborted to date. When we resort to such unsophisticated tactics and language, this is why people have a general proclivity to put us in a box as not being sophisticated people. We are more talented, sensitive, non-racist, and decent than what this billboard suggests. This is why I have to call for the removal of this billboard and for Arkansas Right to Life to replace it with a billboard that simply gives Black people the facts about how many Black babies have been aborted. People cannot argue with facts, but they certainly can argue with language that can seem to be offensive at best.

I know that the issue of abortion is highly controversial and is an issue that deeply divides Americans. I do, however, think that we all can agree to work together to dramatically decrease the number of abortions in America. Again, as a pro-lifer, I call for Arkansas Right to Life to remove this billboard immediately—this will be a move in the best interest of our cause!

Antonio Maurice Daniels

University of Wisconsin-Madison