So along similar lines as my previous post, I continue to struggle with The Right Thing To Do vs. How To Do It in the sensitive subject of abortion. My personal beliefs cannot and do not condone abortion or even certain methods of birth control, yet when it comes to legislating abortion, I do not know if that is the right way to go about it. Regardless of your right to choice or right to life, should the Government be the one deciding what is acceptable and laying it down as law? Can and should the Government have the power to tell you what to do or what not to do? Does and should the Government have the right to do that?
I have been struggling with this for many years. I am unashamed and unabashedly pro-life. I believe in the sanctity of life. Whether you take the life of a person with a knife/gun/bare hands/car/etc. or you take the life of a fertilised cluster of dividing cells, it is still the taking of a life. (And there is always a price to pay.) Yet should these beliefs be forced upon someone else who has less of a conviction in the sanctity of life?
Let's flip it around. What if the government mandates abortion, making it "mainstream"? Oh wait, we know a country that does that... but let's imagine that happened here in America. How would pro-lifers as "rebels" feel and what would we do?
My struggle ultimately comes back to the issue of government -- to what extent do we allow its power to dictate our life? As I quoted an excerpt from The Declaration of Independence in my previous post, life and freedom are unalienable rights. So I leave you with the following quotes to think about:
John Quincy Adams
Sixth President of the United States
I have been struggling with this for many years. I am unashamed and unabashedly pro-life. I believe in the sanctity of life. Whether you take the life of a person with a knife/gun/bare hands/car/etc. or you take the life of a fertilised cluster of dividing cells, it is still the taking of a life. (And there is always a price to pay.) Yet should these beliefs be forced upon someone else who has less of a conviction in the sanctity of life?
Let's flip it around. What if the government mandates abortion, making it "mainstream"? Oh wait, we know a country that does that... but let's imagine that happened here in America. How would pro-lifers as "rebels" feel and what would we do?
My struggle ultimately comes back to the issue of government -- to what extent do we allow its power to dictate our life? As I quoted an excerpt from The Declaration of Independence in my previous post, life and freedom are unalienable rights. So I leave you with the following quotes to think about:
John Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States
[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
John Quincy Adams
Sixth President of the United States
There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.
(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), pp. 22-23.)
Oliver Ellsworth
Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court
[T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . [T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions—institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion.
(Source: Connecticut Courant, June 7, 1802, p. 3, Oliver Ellsworth, to the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut)
James Wilson
Signer of the Constitution
Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.
(Source: James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson (Philadelphia: Bronson and Chauncey, 1804), Vol. I, p. 106.)
Robert Winthrop
Former Speaker of the US House of Representatives
Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.
(Source: Robert Winthrop, Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1852), p. 172 from his "Either by the Bible or the Bayonet.")
Disclaimer: I did copy those quotes from a great organisation called Wallbuilders.
Ps. As uncomfortable as I am with government legislating moral values, I have to give my support towards sustaining a moral society. Separation of Church and State was for the protection of the Church from the influence of the State, not vice versa.
Ps. As uncomfortable as I am with government legislating moral values, I have to give my support towards sustaining a moral society. Separation of Church and State was for the protection of the Church from the influence of the State, not vice versa.
No comments:
Post a Comment