This year the citizens of the United States will cast
their ballots for the office of President.
As I sit and write in this election year the prospective candidates of
the challenging party have been through their first primary vote and have gone
through a number of debates. Following
the final choice of contender and running mate, another series of debates and
advertisements of both challenger and incumbent will take place en route to the
November elections. Amid all the
advertisements and debates, I would contend that the single most important
question to be asked of every candidate is never directly raised.
Is
human life sacred? I have noticed that
this question is never directly asked. Perhaps that is because the answer is seen to
be rhetorical: yes. Which candidate if
faced with the question would stumble around with a diatribe of double-talk or an
outright response in the negative? We
testify to the truth of a positive response with our very behavior. Do we not celebrate a stranger charging into
a burning building to drag out another that is incapable of escape? Do we not honor one who sacrifices her own
life for that of another? Does not our
own Declaration of Independence clearly state the inalienable right of life to
every individual?
All
other topics in a debate depend on the answer to this question. Economic issues concern goods and services
exchanged between people. Domestic and
foreign policy issues concern the interaction between citizens of the same, or
of different nations, respectively. Any
issue relative to governance involves people.
If human life is trivial then the issues concerning how people treat or
interact with each other must also be trivial.
If human life is sacred, then in issues of governance the primary
concern ought to be that the sacredness of every human life is preserved.
I
stated previously that the question is never asked directly, and that is because
it is routinely asked indirectly; something like, “Would you say your position
on abortion is pro-choice or pro-life, and why?” Responses vary based on the stated platform
of each candidate. I contend that those
holding the pro-choice position, as it is most commonly held, does not hold all
human life to be sacred. This is because
the choice being made is to kill a unique unborn human. From conception a unique human life is
growing in the mother’s womb; not a mass of benign cells akin to a tumor, not a
parasite like a tapeworm, but a unique human life. Other than size, location, environment and
level of development that unique unborn human life is no different than a
four-year old toddler, and we do not determine rights of life based on such
differences. To be six feet four inches
tall does not make one more deserving of life than another only five feet four
inches tall. Similarly, we do not
designate one to be less deserving to live because they take up residence East
of the Mississippi River, or because they are underwater. We cannot choose to kill an eight year old
because they have not developed enough to drive an automobile. If we cannot choose to kill a four year old
toddler for these reasons then we cannot kill a unique unborn human for those
reasons either. One might ask about
cases of extreme violation like rape or incest.
As horrible and vile as those acts are, the violators themselves are not
killed for the crime nor would we advocate killing a four-year old toddler
because they are reminders of a horrible violation once endured. Only in cases of tubal pregnancies would
termination be warranted as in that case if the dreadful act of killing one
human life is not carried out two human lives will be lost. If all human life is sacred then we must
fight to preserve all human life possible.
An
acute observer will note that the reasons presented above not to kill an unborn
human life do not provide a reason why life is sacred. Why does our Declaration of Independence
state in the clearest of written word that all human life is sacred? If we are here as a result of some
combination of undirected natural causes, random chance, evolution by natural
selection, genetic drift and the like then human life is remarkable and highly
improbable but not sacred. No, our
Declaration makes clear that all human life is sacred because we are created
and are endowed by our Creator with those inalienable rights. The Christian worldview is the only one that
could provide for such a statement and in Genesis 1:27 we read, “So God created
man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he
created them.” All human life is sacred
because all human life is created by the God of the Bible in His image and we
all at least act as if it were true.
January 22 is the 38th anniversary of the
Supreme Court decision giving legal rights for the killing of unique human
lives and this is an election year. In
my opinion, we should think soberly of the question of the sacredness of human
life and put each candidate under great scrutiny as all other issues of
governance hinge on the answer to that question.
A key question indeed. I wish we had a "pro-life" candidate to choose. We don't. While the president is the most pro-abortion president we've ever had (not merely "pro-choice"), the alternative is in favor of eliminating Roe v Wade ... and turning it over to the States. Life, you see, shouldn't be taken at the federal level; it ought to be a question for the States to have. That's not "Pro-life".
ReplyDeleteHey Stan. It's unfortunate that we don't have a truly pro-life candidate for such a fundamental and critical issue. Whether a candidate is for federal control or states rights, we are still talking about whether life being sacred is a real fundamental truth or not. I'm not even so much concerned about using language like "human-right", even though our Declaration states that is is self-evident and unalienable, as it seems everything from hairstyle to dietary choices are fundamental human rights these days. Life is either sacred or it is not and we either recognize that as the truth and commit to saving as much of it as is possible (in the case of the unborn by recognizing that only in cases where both baby and mother will be lost if nothing is done then decisions by parents are justified) or decide that such decisions are relative and remove all restrictions, then we would at least be consistent. Great hearing from you again, it's always a pleasure.
ReplyDelete