LIFE - No Longer an Unalienable Right?
The Callous Devaluing of Innocence
7 min read
To see a list of all commentaries, click the above picture.
American Naiveté About Communism
Executive Orders, Mail-in Ballots, and the Constitution
Unveiling the DSA Game Plan - Part 1
Unveiling the DSA Game Plan - Part 2
From Microsoft Copilot:
A nation’s treatment of innocent life is one of the clearest moral X‑rays of its character. If you want the distilled takeaway:
How a nation treats innocent life reveals what it truly believes about human dignity, justice, and its own future.
Here’s the deeper structure behind that idea.
🧭 1. Moral Foundation: What a nation believes about the value of a human being
A society’s laws and norms inevitably answer a core question:
Is human life inherently valuable, or conditionally valuable?
If life is seen as inherently valuable, protections tend to be broad, consistent, and applied even when inconvenient.
If life is seen as conditionally valuable—based on age, ability, status, usefulness, or political alignment—protections become selective, and the definition of “innocent” shrinks over time.
This distinction shapes everything downstream.
🛡️ 2. Justice: The strength of the nation’s commitment to the defenseless
Civilizations are judged not by how they treat the powerful, but by how they treat those who cannot defend themselves.
Patterns show up in:
How children are protected
How the elderly are cared for
How the disabled are treated
How civilians are safeguarded in conflict
How prisoners and detainees are handled
How minority groups are protected from majoritarian abuse
A nation that protects the powerless is usually one that protects everyone.
🧪 3. Cultural Stability: What the nation becomes over time
History is blunt:
When a society begins to rationalize harm toward innocent life, it rarely stops at the first category.
The logic expands:
“Only in these cases.”
“Only for these people.”
“Only under these circumstances.”
Eventually, the culture normalizes the idea that some lives are less worthy of protection. That’s when injustice becomes systemic rather than episodic.
🕯️ 4. National Identity: What the nation wants to be remembered for
Every nation writes its legacy through its treatment of innocent life.
Some are remembered for:
Protecting the vulnerable
Expanding rights
Upholding dignity
Others are remembered for:
Atrocities
Indifference
Policies that devalued human beings
A nation cannot escape the moral ledger it keeps.
🌱 5. Future Generations: What children learn about humanity
How a nation treats innocent life teaches its children:
What is sacred
What is negotiable
What is expendable
What is worth defending
Those lessons shape the next generation’s ethics, politics, and civic courage.
⭐ The core truth
A nation’s treatment of innocent life is not just a policy question.
It is a mirror, a warning, and a promise—all at once.
The Declaration of Independence
It was a profound moment in the new and evolving land known as America. In 1776 the colonists decided to break the chain tying them to England and chose to establish an entirely new nation that would become known as the United States of America. A few select men were tasked with developing a document to formally inform England of this decision, although it was Thomas Jefferson who served as the primary author of the Declaration of Independence. In his reasoning, which would be presented to King George III and the English parliament, he offered the following words that have echoed through the past 250 years:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Disrespect for the Right to Life
The above statement from the Declaration of Independence held true for roughly 200 years as life in America - particularly innocent life - was cherished. However, in the early 1970's there was a distinct shift in America's treatment of life as an unalienable right. With the legalization of abortion in the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade (1973), the historically revered value of human life no longer served as a societal anchor. Innocent life became expendable and the lives of children were considered by many to be more of an inconvenience and a nuisance than something to be cherished and protected. In other words, life was no longer seen as a unalienable right. Since that ruling, more than 60 million lives have been discarded at the hands of abortion "doctors."
The Roe v. Wade decision was followed in the 1990's by the rise of euthanasia in America, championed by Doctor Jack Kavorkian (a.k.a., Doctor Death), who claimed to have assisted in the suicides of roughly 130 individuals between 1990 and 1998. While assisted suicide may not involve the taking of innocent life, per se, the rise of this practice was simply another step toward the devaluing of human life.
In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 ruling, determining that the decision in Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional. In that 2024 decision, the Court determined that laws concerning abortion should be left to each state in keeping with the Tenth Amendment. The ruling did little to restore appreciation for the unalienable right to life but did offer individual states the opportunity to respect that right. Since that time, certain states have tightened abortion laws while other states have loosened them.
The state of Massachusetts recently passed a law allowing abortion up to the day of birth. It begs the question: What is the material difference in an infant's body ten minutes prior to birth and ten minutes after birth? Other than the fact that the child outside the womb receives oxygen directly rather than through the placenta, there is no appreciable difference. The child experiences the same searing pain inside the womb as he/she would experience outside the womb were the limbs severed after birth.
On December 4, 2024, a young man by the name of Luigi Mangione walked up behind Brian Thompson, CEO of United Healthcare, on a Manhattan street and shot him - once in the back and once in the leg. Thompson died as a result. Having watched the news reports concerning this incident, one might easily get the impression that there has been more public distress over the treatment of Mangione than there has been concern over the loss of life. It seems much of the public care more about Mangione's constitutional rights than Thompson's unalienable right. In fact, various women around the country have even made marriage proposals and other propositions toward this man who has since pled guilty to murder.
A recent Emerson College poll found that 41% of adults aged 18-29 believed the murder of Brian Thompson was acceptable or somewhat acceptable. While no one would likely view Thompson's life in the same frame as that of an innocent child, there is no indication that he had committed any crime - much less a crime worthy of the death penalty. The notion that it might be deemed acceptable for him to lose his life with a bullet in the back shows callous disrespect for what the Founding Fathers viewed as an unalienable right.
Lindsay Clancy is a woman who is charged with killing her three children - Cora (5-year-old girl), Dawson (3-year-old boy), and Callan (8-month-old boy) - in 2023. Her defense was grounded in a claim that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time of the murders and, thus, should not be found criminally liable. Murder trials generally require a unanimous verdict from the jury. The court case was declared a mistrial in September 2026 when a single juror could not accept that Lindsay Clancy should not be held accountable for her actions.
Like the Mangione case, press coverage of this incident along with coverage of the trial itself could easily lead to the conclusion that there is more public empathy for Lindsay Clancy than concern over the three innocent lives that were taken. Women across the country have protested and taken stands supporting her. In fact, it could easily be argued that, while the children were obviously victims, a second victim is the juror who fought for what he saw as justice for those children and accountability for Lindsay Clancy. He has experienced severe vilification in the public arena as a response to his concern for life.
Over the past several decades, the notion that human life should be treated as a precious, God-given right has been ardently challenged. It seems many people have come to callously view life, not as an unalienable right, but as a privilege. Those same people have then determined that certain individuals are simply undeserving of that privilege, including the most innocent and vulnerable among us.
After considering the assorted incidents mentioned above, it seemed like it might be worthwhile to get an unbiased opinion on the topic. Where could one find an unbiased point of view? Perhaps checking in with AI could provide some insights With that in mind, Microsoft Copilot (an AI feature) was presented with a query about what a nation's treatment of innocent life says about the character of that nation. The following response is unedited, reflecting only the AI perspective on the subject. Rather than some kind of technical response, the answer was refreshingly human-like.
It is curious that AI should provide such thoughtful, human-like insights into what might be considered a highly philosophical question. Still, the points are as well-made as one might expect from any human response. What this says about the character of the nation in which we live - the nation in which we take pride - is for you, the reader, to decide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------If you enjoyed this article, please encourage your friends to visit us here at constitutionmatters.net where the Constitution really does matter. Also, if you appreciate the articles and insights provided here, feel free to contribute to the cause by clicking below.
This book will truly enhance your understanding of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Click the button below to check it out.
Contact
Questions? Reach out anytime.
Email:
contact@constitutionmatters.net
© 2025. All rights reserved.