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.