Amy Hall,
writing at Stand to Reason blog, gives her take on how she wishes a pro-life candidate would respond to the question of how his religious views influence his take on abortion. I think she is on to something.
Saying that life begins at
conception isn’t a controversial statement. It’s a question of science. Ask any
embryologist and he can tell you that what’s growing in the mother’s womb is a whole,
living, human boy or girl at his or her earliest stage of development, with his
or her own unique DNA that will remain the same through all stages of
development, from conception to death.
What’s controversial is that I
think every human being is valuable simply because he or she is a member of the
valuable human race. I don’t think human beings have to earn their rights by
having certain characteristics like the “correct” race, or gender, or size, or ability, or
age.
In other words, it’s the fact that
I think we ought to be upholding universal human rights that’s the
controversial position.
Now as a Christian, I do believe
it’s my duty to protect the natural rights of human beings—to protect universal
human rights—because human beings are the kind of being that’s valuable. But
one doesn’t have to be a Christian to agree with universal human rights. There
are many people of other religions, or no religion, who also want to uphold
universal human rights.
The idea that we’re all created
equal and equally possess unalienable rights regardless of our differences
(race, size, age, ability, etc.) is a founding principle of this nation.
Sadly, in the past, we allowed the government to define some human beings out
of the human family by requiring they have certain preferred characteristics
(like white skin) in order to qualify for protection.
Our failures in the past to hold
our government accountable to our professed principle of unalienable rights for
every human being led to serious
human rights violations. I don’t want to repeat that same mistake. Instead, I
would like to hold us to that founding principle.
You asked for a personal answer, and I agree that there are many
emotions involved on all sides of this question. But I don’t want to
confuse the issue by giving the impression that this is a matter of
personal preference. Regulating subjective preferences is not the role
of government, so answering as if the abortion issue were merely
personal wouldn’t clarify what’s at stake. The issue of human rights is a
public issue, and the protection of the lives of human beings is an
area of public life that requires the government’s involvement.
Well said. Protecting life is a right, not a religious preference.
ReplyDelete