Friday, April 8, 2016

The rights of the unborn. . .

“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” said Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who added that “the woman’s right to make decisions” is the only salient point and issue to be considered in the whole discussion of abortion.

Mrs. Clinton, like nearly all of those who have made abortion the holy grail of liberalism, the sacred issue for feminism, and the litmus test of all public servants (political and judicial).  It illustrates the great intolerance of liberalism -- the sacred nature of the wisdom of liberalism refuses to allow disagreement or tolerate challenge.

But of course rights do not exist for the benefit of the powerful.  They exist precisely for the benefit of those least able to fend for themselves, without access to media or ballot box, and whose very existence offends.  Such is the nature of the unborn.  Children have become possessions to be purchased and used at whim or to be discarded because they are no longer valued.  It is easy now to draw the line at birth but who is to say that this line is itself sacred?  When will society say the same of the aged whose health or mental acuity or memory has left them dependent upon the kindness of strangers and family?  Those who need constitutional protection and the guarantee of rights are exactly the unborn, those dependent upon the care of others, and the aged in their frailty of body or mind.  The arguments can easily be applied to a whole range of additional subjects besides the unborn.

The Church does not raise up the cause of the unborn, the aged, or the infirm because they really are valuable.  We are in no position to judge.  The Lord has determined their value and not by determining their productivity against their requirement for care but with nothing less than the body of Christ in suffering and the blood of Christ splattered upon the altar of the cross.  We do not merely tolerate those who take so much from us (children, infirm, and aged) but we welcome the burden of their care as the opportunity to display the very love which Christ has shown to us.

We will never win the battle on the basis of straining at gnats to find and decide the expanse of rights inherent or explicit to our Constitution or Bill of Rights.  But we must first begin by admitting that rights exist not to protect the strong or guarantee freedom for the majority but to protect those least able to speak for themselves or defend themselves.  And then the Church must raise up their cause not for the benefit they provide to us but for the opportunity they give to us to show the noble character of humanity, the sacred nature of life itself, and the radical shape of love revealed by the cross.  Such is the unique contribution of the Church to the whole debate.  I am in hopes that the debate will continue to be allowed so that we may continue to address the subject with words and actions.  Whether or not the decisions of the powerful are changed, the Church cannot and must not be silent in the cause of the weak, especially the unborn.


Carl Vehse said...

Was it necessary to include with the article a photo of a demonic, lying, murdering, traitorous obscenity?

Anonymous said...

@ Mr. Vehse,

Bring your remarks down a notch. She needs pity and prayer. Christ will judge her in the end. We condemn her speech and actions, but ask God to grant her repentance. Thanks, and a blessed Easter season to you.

In Wyoming

Carl Vehse said...


Yes, as Christians, we are to pray for our enemies. Also as part of the government (We, the People) we need to pray for and encourage our elected and appointed officials, including the juries, to seek justice by indicting, trying, convicting and sentencing such lying, murdering traitors as Hillary.

And we should warn her supporters of what Noah Webster once wrote, "When a citizen gives his suffrage [vote] to a man [or woman] of known immorality, he abuses his trust and he sacrifices not only his interest but that of his neighbor. He betrays the interest of his country."

And a blessed Eastertide to you in Wyoming.

Carl Vehse said...

Claiming "The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights" is a contradiction. Only if the baby were a nonperson lump of cells, ripped apart and removed when unwanted by the baby's mother, could the baby be considered as not having constitutional rights.

But because the baby in the womb is recognized as a person then, by definition, the unborn baby does have constitutional rights. And because the baby in the womb is indeed a person—as Christians recognize—then the abortion of that person is murder, which morally demands that the murderers be brought to justice.

By not including such justice as part of their pro-life efforts, some Christian groups obliterate their own moral claim to being opposed to murder-by-abortion, and reduce their pro-life preference to an equivalent one of choosing appropriate-colored socks to put on. If abortion is wrong because it is murder—and it is, on a genocidal scale—rather than wearing the wrong color of socks, then a pro-life position must truly include a demand for justice.