Alan Keyes
January 21, 1998
Washington, D.C.

I appreciate the warmth of that welcome. Though I must say, given some of the things I have been known to say in recent months about the performance of the Congress, I would expect it to be hot, rather than warm, when I come up here these days. But I think that would have to be "present company excepted." For sure.

I feel especially comforted by recent events in dealing with the subject I want to talk about today. Because I think we have had so many good illustrations of what I am going to be speaking on. Good illustrations, that is, of the extent to which the failure to understand and respect our nation's most fundamental principles in the area of abortion actually, then, becomes a source of corruption for this nation's political integrity overall.

Now, in the midst of other things that are, unaccountably, now suddenly on the mind of the mainstream media, I know it is not going to be very hard to suggest to your minds the possibility that we are in an era characterized by some of the worst corruption of principle and integrity that we have ever seen in American life. I certainly would hope that we will never go to any greater depth than we have in recent years, but who knows?

I don't think it is a hard case to prove, these days. And it is one that is leading more and more Americans, sadly, to lose confidence not only in their leadership--not only, as many people would say, in their government.

I, frankly, don't care whether Americans have confidence in their government. I read the Founding Fathers, and this nation was not build upon confidence in government. We are not supposed to trust the government--we are supposed to trust ourselves. And we are supposed to trust to a system of SELF-government, that allows us, as a people, ultimately to be the arbiters of our own fate and destiny. So, when I listen to all the debates going on these days--even in circles to which I purportedly belong, in the Republican Party and the conservative movement--where people are arguing about whether or not we should, somehow, be championing government, I think there is no question about this.

So, it does not dismay me that the polls tell us that folks do not have confidence in their government. As a matter of fact, it heartens me-- maybe Americans are coming to their senses.

What does dismay me, though, is that more and more people are turning away from the apparatus of self-government in this country. More and more people are abandoning their vocation of citizenship, because they have lost the sense that it is worth it. It is politics in that sense that I mean to talk about today. And I have to clarify that, because we live in a time--sadly, due to the corrupt influence of the mainstream media--when if you say the word "politics," people immediately think you are talking about the competition for power. I am not talking about that competition, when I use the word "politics." I am talking about the true and original meaning of the term, derived from the Greek "politaes," which simply meant "citizen."

Politics is the business of citizenship.

And if we back away from the business of citizenship--if we back away from our vocation as citizens--then, by that fact alone, we destroy self-government in this country. You cannot have government of the people, by the people, for the people, when the people are no longer willing to care, no longer willing to govern themselves--no longer trusting, not of their leaders and not of their government, but rather no longer trusting enough of their own capacities to wish to sustain this system, which is at one and the same time a challenge and a burden, but also the deepest source of dignity, at least in public life, that any people can know apart from their God.

Are we still a people who want to sustain this great gift that through our history God has given to us--the great gift of liberty? I don't know anymore.

And I think that we should not take the fact that we have so many leaders who are unwilling to step up in order to defend the principles that make us free as a sign that we just have bad leaders. We should take it, rather, as a sign that we, as a people, may be losing our conviction; that we as a people are no longer willing to demand--not of them, but of ourselves--the discipline that is required in order to sustain true liberty.

I think that is the question that is before us now, in this era, as a nation. In one way or another, it has been before us and the world during the whole course of this century. For great struggles have taken place between the principles of despotism and tyranny, and those principles which in some way, at some level, respect the human capacity for freedom, respect the concept of human dignity and human rights. A lot of blood and treasure has been risked, lost, sacrificed, in that struggle. A lot of lives, in horrid ways, consumed by the voracious appetites of tyranny.

And yet we come to the end of this century--we who live in the country that, more than any other, exemplifies the material, the scientific, the military, victory of freedom--and at this, the very epitome of our success, it may be that we choose to abandon it, by abandoning ourselves to beliefs--to lies--which necessarily destroy our capacity to be free.

And that is what I believe is presented to us by the abortion issue. And I know that it is very popular, these days--and actually I spend a good deal of time myself, as I go around the country, speaking to fundraisers for crisis pregnancy centers and other groups--I spend a great deal of time myself talking about the fact if we are really going to tackle the issue of life in America today, then we must understand that at some level it is a person-to-person issue; an issue where we, as individuals, in our own lives, starting in our own families, must be willing to take responsibility; that the leadership that can truly turn the country around is a leadership that comes from parents to their children, from wives and husbands to one another; from people within families, within churches, within communities, willing to stand up and bear witness, at the level at which it hurts the most--not in front of huge audiences. The hardest things to say in this life are those things we must say to those we dearly love, by whose love we define our existence, and where our willingness to prefer a principle of truth to their feelings might just cost us something in their love for us. That is the hard part. I deeply believe that this is a battle that, at the end of the day, is fought out each and every day at that level of individual commitment.

But that is not the message I come to bring to you today, because I always like to make sure that if I am standing up to speak, I say something that is needed in the environment in which I am speaking. And today I stand on Capitol Hill, speaking to folks who are looking toward, working in, part of, those entities which represent our national life. And I stand, after a weekend when the headlines were filled with to-ing and fro-ing because of the Republican Party's debate, and so forth, focusing people on this question, as I found on my radio show: Is abortion an issue that really belongs in our politics? Should we be establishing "litmus tests" on abortion? Or is this something that should be dealt with as a matter of "private choice," "private conscience," "religious conscience?"

It is a matter of personal responsibility, and it is a matter of personal choice, and it is a matter of religious conscience. But I have to tell you, that it bespeaks a great incompetence. It bespeaks a great cowardice. It bespeaks a great lack of statesmanship and understanding in so many of our national leaders--Democrat and Republican--that they do not understand that the issue of abortion confronts this nation with the same challenge to its heart of principle that the issue of slavery did in the 19th century--and that we will no more survive as a free people if we reject the principles of freedom for abortion, than we would have survived if we had persisted in rejecting them for slavery.

And so I think it is time that they wake up. I know it is hard, and it is probably unlikely to happen any time soon. But the simple truth of the matter is clear--abortion is not going to go anywhere. The issue will not go away; it will not be defused. It will not be put on the back burner; it will not be replaced; it will not cease to confront politicians and PARTIES, until they make a decision. Because we will either, once again, decide the principle of this issue, in our national conscience, the right way, or we will not survive in freedom. That is simply the truth.

I know that there are a lot of people who do not really want to hear this truth. They would like it to be some other way. But I will tell you straight up front: it is not going to be any other way. That is the simple fact of the matter. They can debate their budgets; they can rejoice in their phony surpluses--I won't go into why I call it phony--all they like. But none of those issues are going to make or break us. The principle involved in this one will. For it is the same challenge that has been before us since the nation was founded--I think a challenge consciously put before us by our Founding Fathers, who understood what they were doing.

And who also, by the way, understood how difficult it was. The beautiful thing about the American Founding is that these are people who articulated what they knew to be a very difficult principle of justice--not because they, themselves, in their actions, in their lives, in their policies, in any way, perfectly reflected that principle. Quite the contrary. When they articulated it, they knew that it put them in contradiction with themselves. Some people criticize them for that: "Oh, they had these great principles, and then they had slaves."

I don't criticize them. What we forget these days, as a people, is that the greatest challenges of human life are not really challenges of always acting consistently with our principles. Not at all. Because we are human beings, not gods. We are human beings, not angels. And, as human beings, we shall never, ever, ever act with perfect consistency with our principles. It is not going to happen.

We will always do wrong. We will always sin. We will always do injustice. It is NEVER going to change, as long as we are human beings. We might as well accept that. We will always be able to see a good we cannot quite do, to understand an ideal we cannot quite realize, to long for a wholeness and perfection that is never quite within our reach.

The challenge of human life is not perfection. The challenge of human life is to persist in our love of truth, to persist in our dedication to justice, to lift ourselves up even after we do wrong, and to subject ourselves to the difficult challenge, to the conflict, to the shame, of acknowledging that there is a principle of truth and right higher than our will, more important than our shame.

And, for the sake of that principle, to bear even with the contradiction that articulating it can give rise to.

That is one of the reasons that I respect our Founders. They were willing to speak that truth which condemned their own actions, in the hope that by speaking it they would plant the seeds of that which would, someday, correct the injustice.

The great thing about it is that their courage was justified, for the seed they planted did just that. It burrowed deep into the heart of America's conscience, until finally it bore fruit, even through the bloodiest civil war, in the destruction of slavery.

But as a people, now, we have reached a depth of corruption such that, as is said in the Bible: we are not just sinning; we are in love with our sins. And we are not just violating principles; we are in love with the evil principles. We wish to set them up as authorities over us. We wish to live without shame, without guilt, without conscience, while we practice every atrocity, and somehow to pretend that this is okay, and that we will get away with it.

That is true gutlessness, and I am sad to say that I think that if anything characterizes the moral tenor of our times, it is that kind of cowardice. Not the weakness that will always be there--and it will. So our fault does not lie in the fact that we do wrong and that we sin, and that we do not respect the principles of truth and justice. No, the fault lies now in the fact that we no longer wish to admit the existence of truth; we no longer wish to acknowledge the importance of principles. We wish to pretend that there is some way in which we can hold on to our rights, while denying that right exists at all.

You know--don't you?--that this is not going to work As a matter of fact, I think that in spite of our present little bubble of calm and seeming prosperity, somewhere in the depths of our being we know that we are just on the edge of the abyss that is going to destroy the great hopes of this nation. I feel that way. I hate to be the bearer of gloomy messages--it doesn't make you real popular.

But it is true. I do not care what the figures look like today. I predict for you--and I say with certainty--that if we do not grapple with these moral issues and deal with them rightly, then before we are much into the next century, we shall begin to see emerge, in this nation and the world, a cavalcade of evil that will make the 20th century look like a dress rehearsal. And that is evil indeed.

For in the 20th century, people violated their consciences. In the 21st, if we are not careful, they will have no consciences.

Now, why do I say all of this? Because this is what the issue of abortion is about. Some people want to pretend that it is about a woman's right to choose. No, it is about those principles which are the basis for claiming any rights at all.

I get this all the time on my radio program. A lady called up the other day, in the midst of our to-ing and fro-ing on the talk show about the discussion about Indian Wells, and whether there should be a litmus test in the Republican Party, and whether it is divisive. She called up and said, "Well, there are so many people who seem to think that joining a party is like joining a religion, and they want to bring religion into politics. Abortion doesn't belong in our politics."

And so I started to ask her a simple question, which I always ask people when they say something like that. And the simple question is this: "Do you believe that you have rights?" Now, you and I both know that it almost goes without saying; it is almost a definition of an American. Who is an American? Someone who believes that they have rights. In every audience I ever ask this question, "Do you have rights?" And ask people to raise their hands. Everybody raises their hands--except a few people. There are always two or three people in an audience who won't raise their hands when you ask them if they have rights. And then I point them out to people and say, "You see. Here are the people who prove what I am saying." Because what better proof of the belief that you have rights, than to be in an audience where everybody raises their hands in answer to that question, and think that you have the right to keep yours down! We are a very ornery people.

The belief that we have rights is the very definition of who we are or reflects that very definition. I thought of this the other day when I was listening to Al Gore give a speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church. I wouldn't want you to think that I do this very often, but it happened that I was sitting there in my studio, in the midst of my show, and he was on. So, I un-muted it and listened for a bit, and read about it in the newspaper. And it was wonderful to hear him go on about how important, in this nation, is the dedication to human rights.

And he is right. I think it altogether fitting that the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, which focuses us on the great and tragic challenge of abortion, and the anniversary of Martin Luther King's birth should occur in juxtaposition. Altogether fitting. Because when Al Gore stands before the folks at Ebenezer Baptist Church and tells them that that our nation is defined by our dedication to human rights, and our desire to hold up before the world a successful example of a nation based upon respect for those rights and for our liberties, he is absolutely right.

But I just yearned to take him by the lapels, and shake him a bit, and say, "But, Vice President Gore, how is it that you can tell us that this nation is defined by its dedication to rights, and then take a stand against defending the rights of the most helpless and vulnerable amongst us? Take a stand against understanding what rights mean in the very context where that chief principle, which is the wellspring of all our rights, is most at stake?"

And that, of course, is this issue of abortion. And I have noticed that even now that people are talking a little bit more about the Declaration principles, they kind of do it gingerly. And it is amazing how they don't really want to bring it up in the contexts where it is important. A speaker who shall remain nameless (though, in a way, I just named him) alluded to the Declaration in a speech he gave the other day, about how we should use it to educate our children in the classrooms, one day a year. Being, as I am, a great disciple of the Declaration, I suppose I should have rejoiced at this.

There is just one problem. And that is that we do not need the Declaration in our classrooms one day a year. We need the Declaration in our laws and in our policies every day of the year. We need the Declaration in the decisions of our courts, and we need the Declaration in the commitments of our leaders.

And we do not have it. For they have forgotten that the greatest moral educator is the law itself. And if the law stands upon a principle of corruption, then we have educated our children to be corrupt, and nothing we say in the classroom will change that. If we preach the Declaration in the classroom and defy it in the Supreme Court, they will learn the lesson, and they will throw these principles away.

And this is where the hard challenge comes. "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." If we believe those words, if that is, in fact, the defining principle of justice on which we stand--and it must be--then there is no way that we can say that we shall determine the humanity of that being in the womb; that it is our choice, our judgment, our decision. For we did not put the stars in their places, nor determine the courses of the heavens. We did not cast up the mountains and cast down the valleys and fill up the seas. This was done by a power beyond ourselves, and it is that power which establishes our claim to basic rights, not we ourselves.

This nation was founded not upon any particular religious view, but upon a simple creed. There is a God; we are not Him. And He has determined that we have a dignity that it is not within our choice to disrespect. It is very simple. We either believe this, or we do not.

In the 19th century, the great challenge, palpably, to that belief was the idea that we could have property in the life of another human being, make them toil and work and slave for us, with no respect for their basic dignity. Then it was a question of whether we had the right to use others for our purposes; now it is the question of whether we have the right to disrespect and cast aside their lives, when they serve for us no useful purpose.

But the fundamental truth of human dignity is that our claim to it has nothing to do with our usefulness. It has nothing to do with our ability. It has nothing to do with our education, our standing, our wisdom or our ignorance, our strength or our weakness. It has to do only with this, that we are--all of us--creatures of God, and that His will has determined that in each and every one of us there is some spark of His divinity, a spark that commands our respect, even as He, Himself, commands it.

And we are either going to respect that, in our laws, or we are not. We are going to respect it in our courts, or we are not. If we do, then freedom survives. If we do not, then it perishes. It is that simple.

Now, I can't tell you how it perishes, exactly. I think it is likely to perish in the next century in a great conflict. And this saddens me a lot. I don't think that a lot of people want to acknowledge it, but in one way or another, we are passing through a period much like the forties and fifties of the 19th century. It may be that we have so lost heart, as human beings, that the point will never arise where people say, "Thus far and no farther; now I will stand and fight."

But it will come, for human dignity is not dead. And if this nation abandons it, there will be those determined to preserve it, who will not be bribed by government programs, who will not be satisfied with the permission to indulge their lusts, but will instead believe that there is an understanding of happiness that transcends pleasure, and that once it is taken away, it makes us not only no better, but worse, than the beasts. And they will not surrender it.

We don't have to get to that point; but we will, if the cowardice continues. We will, if the leadership in this nation continues to believe that their pursuit of power is more important to our future than the maintenance of our free principles. This is not so.

And I want to say to all the members of Congress who are here: I like and respect you all, within reason (laughter). But I do not think that your re-election is as important as the perpetuation of liberty. And I hope that this people, watching a spectacle in which our principles are surrendered, would rather hurl you all into the darkness where there is gnashing of teeth, than keep you in your places at the expense of our liberty. And I will do everything in my power to make sure that they do.

Because I am descended from that people which had no freedom in this country for the longest time. We just arrived at the table. I won't let you shut the restaurant down, because we just started to eat.

Now, what does all that amount to? It amounts to saying this: I think that in the course of the next several years, people are going to realize that there is no more important challenge before this nation than the challenge of our moral character--that there is no greater threat to our moral character than the temptation we face in the issue of abortion.

Most importantly of all, I believe, it threatens us because it substitutes the principle of slavery for the principle of freedom--the principle of slavery basically being that human power determines human worth; the principle of freedom being that God's power determines human worth, and human beings must respect it.

There is no middle ground here. I know that there are people looking for it, but on this issue of principle there is no middle ground. Just as Lincoln said, this nation cannot survive half-slave and half-free. We will not survive either, half-hearted about our freedom.

But wholeheartedness means discipline. And discipline means a leadership--regardless of the consequences, regardless of whether you are elected or not, regardless of whether you are popular or not, regardless of whether you are well spoken of in the New York Times and the Washington Post or not--you must be willing to stand up and speak the truth to this people.

We as a people do not have the right to do what we please. We do not have the right to violate the basic premises of human dignity, because we please. We do not have the right--for the sake of our sexual indulgence and convenience--to cast aside the charter of our liberty. And if we do it, we are wrong, and should be denied.

I believe--I hope--that I would have said as much to people in the 19th century when, by majority vote, they claimed to establish our regime of slavery. I certainly believe we must, in conscience, say the same to our people today.

And it is a hard thing to say. Literally, you have to deny people their pleasures. And in this society, this is a dangerous thing. I mean, after all, if you have got issues on which all of those who cater to our pleasures, who make the beautiful movies and sing the wonderful songs and offer us vast plates of self-indulgence--if all of them line up on one side of an issue, and you line up on the other, I guess it can be pretty lonely.

Except for this one thing: if you stand with that truth which sets us free, then you stand where, as a leader in a free nation, you must be. Better to stand there and fail, than to succeed in holding on to power while this nation corrupts itself into a people no longer capable of freedom.

I honestly believe that this is the choice before our leaders right now. And some are going to argue, of course: "But, Alan, if we go down that road that you are suggesting, doesn't that mean that folks who are willing to lie, and folks who are willing to manipulate, and folks who have all the conniving prudence to pander and tell people what they want to hear are going to be elected, and they will win and they will sit in the White House, and they will make the rules, and so forth?" Maybe it does. I think this because people tell me all the time that there is no possibility of success, if one just keeps on being consistent. Maybe it is true.

But then, it all depends on your ambition. And nobody who deals with public policy in America--and I confess this--can be entirely free of some ambition. I suppose mine, such as it is, was probably born when I was a youngster in the 1960's, watching all these great to-ings and fro-ings over civil rights, and all of these issues like the Vietnam War. In those days we were a people--on account of our position in the world, on account of the challenges of our history--struggling with some elemental questions. And whatever you might say of the leadership of that time, the one truth is that they didn't run away from those questions. On one side and the other, they understood.

And there is something really attractive about the idea of leading a people that still has dignity, that still cares about truth, and justice, of being somehow a part of their public life and discussion. And if you win an election from such a people, the day after that you can probably feel pretty good about yourself.

If you win an election from a people corrupted by its own pleasures, willing to indulge all its vices at the expense of truth, then all you confirm with your election is your own degradation and debasement. Better not to be a leader, than to lead such a people.

And this is the choice we have to make. One can either be a standard by which the American people will test their integrity, or a seducer by which they lose it. I know where I wish to stand. I know where all the decent men and women of American history have wished to stand.

And I know this, as well: that through all the times when it looked as if abolition would never work, women would never get the vote, workers rights would never be respected, and when people stood alone against all the forces arrayed, of every establishment, and people said they would never succeed--in the end, the great heart of this people has always moved toward the right thing, and the just thing, and the principled thing in the end.

And they will again.

So, I have enough faith in them to believe. And it doesn't matter how lonely it seems today. The key thing is to make sure that they have a choice of what is right--not the lesser of evils. What I especially find interesting is that politicians, people running for office, will actually have this "lesser of evils" argument in their mouths. I don't know whether I would be terribly proud of being a lesser of evils. It doesn't seem like a very distinguished position, to me--especially not if you really wish the best for your people.

Do we wish the best for them? Do we wish the best for the children we have begotten? Do we wish them to grow up to be people whom we would respect, and who respect themselves? Because if we do, then the lesser of evils is never enough. Someone must be willing to offer this nation a good choice, regardless of the consequences--to stand for the best principles of our heart, regardless of our weakness.

And it is this challenge to statesmanship that I believe the abortion issue epitomizes. It is not the only issue that is involved in this, of course. We have a lot of others. But if someone were to ask me which issue sums it all up, which issue epitomizes it, which issue goes to the heart of that challenge which is before us, I think it is the issue of abortion on the basis of which we will decide whether, in fact, we wish to remain a free and decent people.

As an example: I have noticed over the last several years that, because of advances in technology and so forth, it is harder and harder for people who are part of the pro-abortion effort to make the case that we are not dealing with a human life in the womb. For all kinds of reasons, dealing with genetic advances and advances in our understanding of exactly how that life in the womb is developing, sonograms, other things--we are getting a very lively sense that we are dealing with a human life.

It is a sense confirmed--by the way--by the fact that we now live in an era where we more and more must conceive of the Creator not as a master architect but a master programmer, someone who can actually lay down the rules and see them followed. And we now, ourselves, through our little computer understanding, know how this works. You can not only put a building up; you can actually make it do things on its own, according to your plan.

If you understand God as a master programmer, then you know that the program for Microsoft Windows does not exist, as such, when I turn on the machine. It is there in all that programming code, that seed, as it were, which contains Windows. So it is with human life--the whole of it there in the seed. Simply awaiting that action by which we turn on the computer, and then it unfolds in all its glory. But that unfolding, that development in the womb--that is not the point at which the program was created.

Do any of you mistake yourselves for the creator of Microsoft Windows? If so, you are thirty billion dollars short, I think. No, you do not. Because you understand that when you run the program, you have not created it. So when we play our little roles in the conception, physically, of human life--we have not created it. The true conception is not a conception in the womb, but rather a conception in the mind of God. And I have noticed in the last several years that it is harder and harder, therefore, for all of these folks to be denying the humanity of that life in the womb.

Now they have come to a different argument. No longer being able to tell us that it is not human, they do as the slaveholders did when people started to awaken to the humanity of the slaves. They started to say, "Well, human, maybe--but some of us are more equal than others. Some of us are more human than others. Some of us are more entitled to respect for our rights, and our dignity, and our lives, and our feelings, and our choices." And so we shall, once again, begin to establish that hierarchy of humanity.

But where does it end? If that life in the womb is somehow worth less than the life of the mother outside the womb, than perhaps the life at the threshold of the grave is worth less than life lived in the robust exuberance of youth.

They seem to think that. If the quality of life consists mainly in enjoying all its pleasures, then I guess as we get older, we see life's quality ebbing away. And once we have reached that point where it no longer has quality, if somebody wants to snuff us out, what harm have they done, except to end that which is no longer of any use anyway?

We are already pointing the finger of death toward those at the end of life, even as we have toward those at the beginning. Having once reintroduced that principle of moral inequality which is at the root of tyranny, and slavery, and despotism of every sort throughout human history, we shall see the reality of it re-emerge.

And we, the people, who were entrusted with this great gift of truth which respects the common moral condition of our humanity, will have failed of our purpose. We will have missed our destiny. This is what lies at the heart of the abortion issue.

But I see that now that that principle of inequality is starting to re-appear, the American people are beginning to do what they have always done, when they started to realize what was going on. Somewhere in our heart of hearts, those of us who do not have thirty billion dollars realize that the principle that defends dignity and life--in spite of weakness; in spite of ignorance; in spite of poverty--is actually the principle on which we, all of us, rely for our survival.

In the end, there is no greater threat to us than that threat which unleashes, against the losers, the vindictive power of the winners. And I think that what most of these folks don't count on is that at some level all of us realize that in the material sense, in this life, compared to the Donald Trumps and Bill Gates of the world, we're always going to be losers. And a principle that re-establishes the right of winners to oppress the rest is a principle that is never, in the end, going to succeed.

So now people are beginning to realize that this is what abortion is about. It is about the winners and the losers. Some of us won the lottery, and we made it to birth; others of us haven't done it yet. And there are those who are standing up and saying that those who haven't won through yet--we can kill them; we can snuff them out. But once we have re-established the principle that losers pay with their lives, most of us know that our lives are doomed. Our little fortunes and hopes will also be destroyed.

With this at stake, I live and work in the confidence that if one simply stands clarion-clear for the truth of those principles which guarantee to each and every one of us the equal respect for our moral selves which our Founders made the first principle of our justice--for a while all will be against you. And then, for a while--and I think we are entering that period now--everybody will pretend to be on your side.

And then, it will shake out. And you will awake to discover that the American people have chosen, as they have always chosen in the end, to uphold the standard which offers to all humanity the hope that we shall come together in that respect which God gives to each of us, and standing on that common ground, to forge--in the midst of all our diversity--one great human race capable of leading the challenges of our common future, because we acknowledge the discipline of our common humanity.

God bless you.

Question & Answer Session

Question: Dr. Keyes, can you talk to us about cloning?

Dr. Keyes: I have been reading these articles in the press which suggest that, somehow or another, cloned human beings are going to pose a special problem for us. I take it as a sign of our corruption that we even raise this question. Because that means that, somewhere in the back of our minds, we are entertaining the possibility that a cloned individual could somehow be treated in a way different than the rest of us.

And I immediately ask, why? So we have peeked into the mechanism whereby God produces this whole that we are, and with His grant of permission to our limited understanding we are able to sort of get the process to work in a way He didn't quite intend. All right--that still does not make us its creators or masters. Nor does it in any way change the status of the being so produced.

Which is why I was appalled to read in the New York Times that there are scientists out there talking about how you are going to clone people so that you will have spare parts for yourself. And I am thinking to myself, "By what right would we claim property in the limbs and heart and kidney of another human being?" Only if we persist in this abortion idea and by doing so re-introduce the doctrines that degrade us from our humanity.

So I think that all of these things go hand-in-hand. Those who are lusting after the profits and seeming immortality that might be offered by cloning, are people who were perfectly willing to purchase their little hold on life at the expense of our hold on decency. And that is why I was glad to see that Bill Clinton, even, was able to understand that there were some very profound--they call them "ethical;" why do they use the word "ethical?" Is that a way of avoiding the word "moral?"--there were these profound moral issues involved in even discussing this business of cloning, and kind of said, "Why don't we put this off?"

And I agreed with him, although for different reasons than he believes. I agree with him because he epitomizes the reason we should put it off--as long as we have people capable of such moral myopia as Bill Clinton, we had better not try exercising a power like this!

(Question: inaudible)

Dr. Keyes: It is a good sign, though, in this sense. And this is one of the reasons that I am watching what is going on today--and I hope some of you will forgive me for alluding to this--for instance, within the Republican Party. And I watch what is happening as people to-and-fro about how forthrightly the party will its stand on abortion.

It is really amazing to watch people throw away their opportunities. What I think a lot of folks do not realize is that, in terms of the fundamental issue, the debate over abortion in America is over, and we won. It is over.

And, therefore, what is happening now is relying upon the power that exists in a de-facto condition. People holding on to something which they have illegitimately--and they know it now: there is no just claim to it--but since they are in the position, and for the moment forces are arrayed to keep them there, they have a certain confidence.

But see, in America this doesn't work. Because after a time, once you have proven to Americans that they do not have the right to something, little by little that worms its way into their conscience, and they don't want it anymore.

We are not a people who want our possessions by unjust means. If we were, we would have held on to the world after World War II. I often think that any other people in human history, in the position we were in at the end of World War II, would simply have told everybody what to do--would have established an American empire that might have lasted a couple of centuries.

Instead, knowing that we had no right to it, we kind of gave it back. "Here, take it; we don't want it." As a matter of fact, we didn't even say that, because it never occurred to us to take it--that is the wonderful thing about being an American. It usually doesn't occur to you, if you are a real American, to take things that don't belong to you.

So, I think that the fact that they know it is illegitimate is the worm in the apple. And it will, in the end--and is, I think--destroying the conviction particularly of those people who weren't adamant about it. And so this is desperation, now. "Let's not talk about abortion anymore; let's talk about contraception. We can maybe win on that one. Because you guys have already won on abortion. So, we shift ground to something we can hope to sustain."

We must be careful not to let them shift ground. We must be careful to make sure that the American people continue to focus on the truth. And if we do, the fact that we are willing to do so--our conviction--will itself be persuasive.

Why is it that our leaders don't understand this? It is true, by the way. If you are dealing with someone--whether it is a nation, or any group of people--have you ever noticed how things will just be sort of milling around, and very often you don't get anywhere until somebody has the guts to just stand there and articulate a position?

Now, it isn't always the case that people will accept that position. But the minute somebody has the guts to articulate one, things can move forward--in meetings, in organizations, and so forth. That's what leadership is about.

In that respect today, I say in these hallowed halls with intention, "We have no leaders in this country!" Not those who are in the foreground; not those who are, right now, at the head of things. They are unwilling to take the risk.

And because they are unwilling to take the risk, the people of this country continue to mill around. This is the only way that Bill Clinton sustains himself: because nobody has the guts to speak the truth, while he lies with conviction.

So, I think this is the time to be more bold, more forthright, more determined. And by doing so you will strike more and more Americans out there with the truth, "Hey, let's take a listen to that. Anybody willing to stand with that much conviction must be worth hearing."

Now, if they will grant that much credit to a deceiver, surely they will grant it to somebody telling the truth.

Question: When we have won the war against abortion, will we have won the war against euthanasia?

Dr. Keyes: It depends on whether we continue to fight the war, or are content merely to win a battle. And that is why everywhere I go, including today, I acknowledge that the argument being made by some that you should focus away from issues of principle and toward issues that deal with the human challenge of abortion, and reducing the number of abortions, and so on--it sounds real good, especially to those people who would dearly love to get away from this issue--but, if we do it that way, then we could very well end up reducing the numbers of abortion without, in the least, affecting the corruption of heart that is actually destroying the country.

It is one of the reasons that I, myself, have a particular sense of dismay and lack of confidence in leaders who run away from the abortion issue. Because it means that they don't understand what a great opportunity it offers.

I don't see this issue as some terrible challenge that I wish I didn't have to talk about, understanding that the real challenge to our Republic right now is the challenge of restoring our character, and that that challenge affects our families; it affects the integrity of our marriages; it affects the quality of our work in the workplace; it affects our crime budgets; it affects the size of our welfare establishment--every problem we are tackling in this country, in fact, is made worse and can be made better, depending on how we deal with the challenge of character.

If that is true, then you would pray for an issue that allows you to bring before the American people the issues of moral principle, because by dealing with those issues, we rebuild our character; we regain our discipline; we regain our sense of those things which are more important than the transient little indulgences of sex and pleasure that are now so much on offer, as if they were indeed the happiness of a free people.

So, I think we could end up making no progress on these other great issues, including euthanasia, if we turn away from the issue of principle that is at the heart of abortion. If, on the other hand, we articulate it, then it is quite clear--if you really understand the reason why you must oppose abortion, then you realize that, as I have no right to kill the child in the womb, so I have no right to kill myself or others. None. Because that right doesn't arise merely from sentiment. The reason I should hold my hand from the innocent life in the womb isn't just because I am revolted by the thought of killing babies; isn't just because of that feeling that I get. No. It is because of a great principle, which denies to me authority over the fundamental truths of human rights and human dignity.

But, if I do not have that authority as a mother with respect to the child in the womb, because it is God's determination, so I do not have it with respect to the old, the disabled, the less fortunate, or even myself.

Rush Limbaugh says his talents are on loan from God. I think we ought all to remember that our life and being is on loan from God. And only the Author has the right to cancel that debt.

Question: Why do you think that the black community has not portrayed abortion as slavery, and therefore been outraged by it?

Dr. Keyes: At one level, I think they have. This is the thing that bespeaks the effect, the consequence, of a lack of character. Al Gore can go before a black audience at Ebenezer Baptist Church and, despite the position he now takes on abortion, he can pretend to be a big champion of civil rights. Now, if you went through that audience, and polled them, if the survey turned out the way it generally turns out, you would find that about half that audience would be pretty much against abortion under all circumstances. On religious grounds, "You can't do that; God doesn't allow that." Another 25% would say, "Well, maybe under this or that circumstance." And only a minority of that black audience agrees with Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore, that you have got to defend the right, for instance, to kill babies as they are coming out of the womb. It would appall, and does appall, black Americans, as it appalls most Americans.

So, you have to ask yourself, "Why, then, does a community that consistently expresses its conviction against abortion then support people who are for abortion." Do you know why they do it? Because the leaders who are pro-life haven't had the guts to go before every audience and articulate the pro-life position.

This is why I blame them when they do it. I blame all these people. You give them ten or fifteen minutes in front of the American people at a great debate, and they talk about everything except this issue that is most important. How do you expect people to know how important it is, if you are not willing to talk about it? How do you expect them to make the right choice, to see the contradiction between the truth and those people they are supporting?

If you go out, and in all the debates, and in all the confrontations, you act as if the only issues that matter are the issues of money and materialism. It is that view that makes it impossible for people who share the moral heart to stand with those who articulate the moral principles.