On
this 43rd anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court Roe v Wade decision … legalizing abortion ‘on demand’ … and in
memory of the some 58-million fellow Americans who have been murdered as
result, it is only fitting in this election year of 2016 to examine the
presidential candidates’ position on the sanctity of human life.
The
political question is this: Should governments make laws to protect the lives
of the pre-born? If the answer to that
question is ‘yes,’ then there are more specific questions, such as: Should the
pre-born be protected from the moment of conception to the moment of birth; or
only from some later point in pregnancy?
What should the pre-born be called – a fetus, a pre-born child, and
unborn child, or a baby? What kind of
penalties should be attached to taking the life of a pre-born child? Even for those who do not think governments
should make laws protecting the lives of pre-born children, other policy
questions remain: Should governments pay for women to have abortions? Should physicians and other health-care
providers who think abortion is morally wrong be compelled to perform
abortions? Should government policies
promote or discourage abortions?
Several
passages in the Bible suggest that a pre-born child should be thought of as a
person from the moment of conception.
For example, before the birth of John the Baptist, when his mother,
Elizabeth, was in about her sixth month of pregnancy, she was visited by her
relative, Mary, who was to become the mother of Jesus. St. Luke records Elizabeth exclaiming – “Behold, when the sound of your greeting
came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.” (Luke
1:41-44) Under the influence of the Holy
Spirit, Elizabeth calls the pre-born child a baby.
One
of the fundamental responsibilities of a government is to protect the lives of
the people it governs. For if government
is to punish those who do evil and to prevent them from harming the innocent,
then a government certainly must protect its people from the ultimate harm of
being killed. If pre-born children are
considered persons, then surely government should protect their lives. In fact, it is especially the weak and
helpless (those without other means of protection) who should be the objects of
governmental protection.
But
the sanctity of human life is not limited to pre-born children. There is also the issue of euthanasia which
raises the question: Should governments make laws against intentionally taking
the lives of elderly or the dying persons?
This issue often comes to focus in the case of terminally ill patients
who are experiencing chronic pain and who no longer want to live and who may
even wish that they could be put to death.
It also is a question in the case of people who have lost much or most
of their mental capacities because of a coma or severe dementia; or patients
who through severe injury or illness appeared to have no reasonable human hope
of recovery. What should the law all do
in such cases?
The
primary biblical teaching in this regard is found in the Ten Commandments: “You shall not murder.” (Exodus
20:13) This commandment, which is
affirmed in the New Testament (Matthew 18:19 and Romans 13:9) applies to all
human beings created in the image of God.
It does not say, “You shall not murder, except when a person is more
than 80 or 90 years old”, or “You shall not murder except when a very ill
person wants to be murdered.” Just as
the command against murder prohibits abortion in the very early stages of human
life, so the command against murder also prohibits intentionally taking the
life of a person in the final stages of human life. The word translated “murder” includes both
premeditated murder and also an accidental causing of another person’s
death. One other passage of special
significance is 2 Samuel 1:1-16. King
Saul had recently died in battle, in effect making David the king. A few days after the battle where Saul had
died, a man came to David and claimed that he had found Saul gravely wounded;
and that Saul had begged for the man to kill him, and the man had done so. In several ways this was an act of euthanasia. Yet David’s response was to order capital
punishment for the man who had done this.
In other words, the person who carried out euthanasia is guilty of
murder.
The
direction of society takes on the question of euthanasia is a reflection of how
highly it values human life and how highly it values God’s command not to
murder. In societies where
physician-assisted suicide becomes legal, this will set the stage for a further
erosion of the protection of human life.
Some people will be thought “too old” to deserve medical treatment. Compassion and care for the elderly will
diminish, and they will be more and more thought of as burdens to care for,
rather than valuable members of the society.
And, unless we experience premature death, all of us will ourselves one
day be those elderly people who need care and support from others.
Where does your candidate stand on the
sanctity of human life?
Rev. Dr.
Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain
(Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor,
Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel
The Roe decision cheapened ALL human life and is largely responsible for the loss of life throughout our society. Women throw away their babies, Adults throw away their parents, gangs throw away anyone they find.
ReplyDelete