I purposefully wanted to begin the New Year with a post on a topic that is both controversial but also current and important, namely abortion. Many strong stands are being taken with regard to the comprehensive Health Care bills and the debate over possibilities and variations on inclusion, funding and scope of abortion in the United States under the new Health Care bill. For my part, I have not read the House or Senate Bills in their entirety, although not for a lack of trying. In both cases I attempted to download the document from the government website and read for myself, but the file was so large that it took over 60 seconds for my screen to refresh every time I scrolled down on a page or clicked to a new page. I simply didn't have the time. I say that to say that I cannot speak to the specific language in the Bills, so I won't, i'll just tackle the issue of should abotion be funded by taxpayers.
My answer is simply put in a previous post on this site entered on October 5, 2009 entitled "Justifiable Homocide?" The excerpt is as follows:
"What is the unborn? If that thing growing in the mother's womb is not an individual human being, then kill it and remove it, whether it is for a good reason or not, no justification is needed. If, however, the human fetus is an individual human person differing from a 2-year old child only in size, shape, environment and degree of development then there is absolutely no reason that anyone could give (outside of an immediate fatal condition to the mother such as a tubal or ectopic pregnancy) that would warrant killing that innocent person."
Taxpayer money should not be used to fund abortions because abortion is the killing of an innocent and defenseless human person. For me, the money involved the number of people in favor of or against the bill, results of poll data, other points in the bill that are important, or the necessity to get something done because the medical system is flawed have nothing to do with whether killing the unborn is right or wrong. We don't even ask that question much any more. Is it right to do? It seems more and more the only questions asked are, "Can it be done?" or "Do a majority of Americans agree with doing it?" If we go down that road and make decisions based on pure pragmatism, utilitarianism or majority rule then history has already taught us where it all ends.
With respect to governmental role in the matter, I think it far oversteps any bounds ever laid out for the Legislative, Judicial or Executive branches. I don't even see a need to debate the question of whether the government should be allowed to force anyone in the United States by rule of law to participate in an activity they find morally wrong. I suppose if it is passed those who have for so long called themselves pro-choice will have to change their position to pro-mandate. In any case, I am more concerned about what happens when you take this to its logical conclusion. If we judge what is acceptible by what is passed into law, i.e. it's right because the government says so, then where does that leave all other moral issues. I was amazed to hear in President Obama's speech (in which he condemned the violence against protesters in Iran) say that the protesters were only trying to exercise their universal right to protest for freedom. "Universal right". This used to be an inalienable right, something given by God to all those He created in His image and likeness. Do we now believe the universe gives us the right of freedom? What will we say next, that it is a global right? How about a secular governmental right?
Whether funding for abortion is actually included in the final Health Care bill that is voted on and if passed sent on to the President for his signature is yet to be seen. I belive that abortion is wrong. The unborn are innocent human persons whose lives should be protected just as the lives of toddlers, young men and women, adult men and women and the elderly should be protected.
It is a New Year but this issue and my concern over it remains the same. I continue to pray that the truth will be clearly seen and that more and more we will work to stop the damage we are doing in destroying so many human lives.
I was listening to a radio talk show once a few years back and the host was making his case that Bush was the next Hitler. I phoned in and pointed out that Germany was a sovereign nation and was doing what it thought was the right thing to do by exterminating the Jews. I pointed out that America-a country that he had made obvious that he hated for what he saw was its imperialistic tendencies-had imposed its will on Germany and that I didn't understand why he, thought that it had any right to intervene in Germany's affairs since they had not attacked us as Japan had. His response was telling. He simply said that I had a point. But of course I didn't have a point unless morality is what the majority, or the government, says it is. It didn't take him long to figure out that I was no friend and cut me off.
ReplyDeleteWhen man is the measure of all things we are set adrift and I don't think anyone, except those who find themselves at the helm of the drifting ship, is going to like very much where we drift off to, especially given the actual heart of man.
Dan, it is interesting that you mention a ship set adrift. It reminds me of the illustration by C.S. Lewis when he speaks of human morality as a ship at sea and that there are three things the ship needs to concern itself with. Where it is going, how to keep from bumping into other ships, and what it's doing out there in the first place.
ReplyDeleteOftentimes I think our nation is so consumed with how to keep from bumping into one another that we have forgotten why we are out here in the first place.