Skip to main content
It's really very simple: If the living product of a sexual union is a person, you can't make an exception for when it's OK to kill them. Even in horrible situations like rape, we need to remember that this person did not choose how to come into being. None of us did. Shall we take life away, because of the evil of someone else?

It seems astonishing to me that we spend so much time talking about 'reproductive rights' and not about that most fundamental right we all have: the right to life itself. What are we? Are we defined by what we are able to accomplish, or by an inherent dignity that no others can deny or destroy, and that misfortune and accident can only obscure, but never eliminate?

Tell me why a political party who presumably exists to promote economic fairness among those weakest among us: the racially marginalized, the disabled, the forgotten, has forgotten its first duty-- to defend the weakest among us. Who needs more help than a child?

Some people would have you believe that grown adults and people on the cusp of adulthood have reproductive freedom only when faced with the moral choice of whether to take the life of a child. But if freedom means anything, it is that liberty of self-determination. We are not determined beings, driven irrevocably to carry out biological imperatives over which we have no control. Even if we decline to imbue this with religious significance, we must understand that a human person has the power to create life itself. And only the foolish among us fail to recognize that the glory of that life is more than ordinary.

What those who oppose us are saying is that the State has the power to take away the very life it exists to defend, and to exonerate those who take it from others. But in truth, the State itself is bound to a higher law, given by the Giver of Life himself. If its officers decline to participate in unlawful taking of human life under the pretense of freedom, they aren't being extreme; they are merely recognizing reality too long obscured by uncritical political passion and lesser interests at odds with our highest duties.

I applaud the Republican Party's pro-life plank, because it should be the most obvious of things to stand for. The right to life. If a party doesn't get this right, who cares what it says about anything else?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un