Part 16: The Death of a Child
-
Call to Action.
The debate on Abortion often includes a statement by the two sides that reasonable and good people can differ sincerely on the practice of abortion. This is a seemingly gracious and polite statement contributing to a civil debate, but it is a false statement. A good person is one knows what is good and attempts sincerely to do it. To be “good” is to have a virtue, a quality of character that contributes to living rightly in the world as it is. “Goodness” is the act of conforming one’s behavior to transcendent principles that govern the world of human relations. If a person does not know these principles, and therefore does not follow them, he may not be consciously evil, but he cannot be considered “good”. He may even be “innocent” in his ignorance, but he is not virtuous.
This false idea that good people can differ on the question of abortion leads to compromises of matters that cannot be ethically compromised. Good people cannot differ on the wholesale continuous destruction of millions of defenseless human lives as if the question was one of setting grooming standards or freeway speeds. It is time to be resolute on the issue. We must step forward in one voice to say that abortion is a moral and spiritual abomination that will steadily erode our original “goodness” as a nation.
We must take steps to advance on two political fronts simultaneously: we must seek state constitutional protections of pre-natal human life as well as state legislation that will provide the maximum protection of pre-natal human life currently permitted by federal decisions. Secondly, we must seek to reverse current federal constitutional decisions permitting virtually unchecked abortion. This second approach includes two tactics: The first is the appointment of U.S. Supreme Court justices by President Bush who will overturn Roe v. Wade. The second concurrent tactic is to press for a Constitutional amendment explicitly legally defining a pre-natal human life as a “person” from the time of conception, with all the protections of life accorded equally to other persons under the Constitution.
Before these political changes take place, we can do much to protect pre-natal life. We can educate ourselves on the science of when human life begins, and we can become more informed on how Christian ethicists define the core concept of “person” even as a human being goes through the different stages of biological life. We can then be prepared to state the case to our family and acquaintances for when human life begins. We can develop a case that a “person” is a human life having an individual identity with protections and rights, at all its stages of biological existence.
We must also at the same time in the current hostile political environment do all we can to discourage women from choosing to kill their unborn children. We must approach these women compassionately, and with clear alternatives to abortion. We must give these women “a way out” other than abortion if they are convinced they are unable to act as parents. Therefore, we should financially support private pregnancy centers that espouse a pro-life program. These centers can provide financial, medical, emotional, and psychological support and education to mothers who cannot or will not keep their children after birth.
Clearly, we need to devote private and government resources to adoption, and to seek reform of adoption laws that delay adoption unnecessarily, and discourage people from adopting. We must let people see that adoption is a socially rewarded and supported act of love by public and private media campaigns that communicate and praise the adoption alternative.
Finally, we must educate the public about the inherent value of human life, and therefore the critical importance of abstaining from sexual activity that produces human life outside a responsible family environment. Popular media represents sexuality as a thoughtless self-indulgence having no long-term consequences. We must celebrate God’s gift of sexuality, while also communicating the message that it carries profound responsibilities for the creation and care of human life.
Currently, the Judiciary Committee is very active in preparing for the inevitable public hearings that will follow the resignations of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and of Chief Justice Rehnquist. There may be other vacancies during the next three years. The time is critical for followers of Christ to do all they can to influence the outcome of those hearings and the eventual vote of the Senate confirming the President’s appointments. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, Sam Brownback of Kansas, took testimony during June, 2005, from legal experts to address these fundamental questions of “the beginning of human life”, and the idea of “person” within the meaning of the Constitution. The subcommittee is also examining afresh the intellectual and legal underpinnings of Roe v. Wade, a decision that created a right to abortion within the 14th Amendment. Individual Christians should promptly communicate their position for protection of pre-natal life by contacting the Chairman. (EN 38)
On July 19, 2005 the President nominated John Roberts as Justice to the Supreme Court. Judge Roberts was sworn into the vacancy of Justice Rehnquist as the new Chief Justice on September 29, 2005. On October 3, 2005 president Bush nominated Harriet Miers to fill the vacancy of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Both of these justices are Christian, and Ms. Miers is specifically evangelical. She actively practices her faith and regularly attends services in the Dallas area. In matters of faith she is closely aligned with her President. She is likely to take principled position when addressing matters of state restrictions of abortion. These appointments are pivotal to the ultimate decision of whether the Court will uphold the “judicial activism” that created a constitutional privacy right permitting women to abort children virtually without restriction. The Court needs to know that there is a persistent and dedicated citizenry opposing abortion. The importance of this public stance is reflected by the Court’s pronouncement in Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (EN 39) The Casey majority reflected on the divisions of moral position over the decades since Roe v. Wade. In doing so, it admitted that it did not function in a vacuum, but understood that its credibility and stature depended on public opinion. Still, the Court took an unprincipled approach to the issue of the “right to life” of the unborn child in opposition to the “right to liberty” of the pregnant mother seeking abortion. The Court stated in strangely political terms that so much had already been invested in upholding Roe v. Wade that reversing the decision would undermine public respect for precedent and give the impression that the Court was changing its position in response to public pressure. The decision is reminiscent of the practice of “throwing good money after bad”. The rationale in both cases is to ignore the continuing cost of the original erroneous decision because so much has already been invested in the original bad choice. Casey, like Roe v. Wade, will fall because it violates the limits of Government set forth in the Constitution, and because it condones the taking of human life without due process of law.
Therefore, the basic failure of the legal and moral legitimacy of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey must be continuously brought to the public domain, and made the subject of vigorous debate and protest. This approach has influenced the election of our current President, a Republican majority in the Senate, and produced appointments of conservative jurists who will reverse or erode the Roe v. Wade decision. Now, as the balance of opinion shifts on the Court, people of conscience must even more persevering in condemning the immorality of Roe v. Wade and all decisions following it.
