Sometimes people are unclear on what it is this debate is all about. Some folks consider the “Right to Life” as a sentiment, moral or otherwise. Others see it as a strong religious conviction.
But that’s not quite right.
As a sentiment it is certainly noble. And as a religious conviction it most certainly complements one’s faith, as it shows that that faith is not merely concerned with ethereal and theological tenets, but is applicable to the human condition.
But the “Right to Life” is a principle of neither sentiment nor religion.
It is literally a statement of public policy. It is a legal phrase. It is taken from a legal document, the document that established the American nation.
The “Right to Life,” from which our movement draws its name, is a public policy assertion that the new republic asserted as legitimizing its creation. It is a statement of the true and legitimate role of government. According to those assembled in 1776, it is one of the narrowly delineated functions of a legitimate government to protect the governed innocent. It was asserted as an essential role of a just and limited government.
The “Right to Life” then, is first and foremost a legal term. It is only ‘incidentally’ sentimental or religious; not about ‘my faith’.
Prohibiting theft is a legal issue, and your faith hopefully affirms society’s laws against theft. But that does not mean that society’s theft laws are based on your faith. Society does so because of the objectively demonstrable mayhem that would ensue without such laws. While it is a compliment to your faith that it affirms this principle, theft laws are not based on the assertion of your religion.
By dictionary definition, an abortion can only take place when it ends a life. In every abortion a unique human being is destroyed. Genetically unique, the heart is beating often before the mother knows she is even pregnant. Objectively speaking, a human abortion requires the taking of a human life, just as a canine abortion necessitates the killing of puppies before they are born.
In the cases of infanticide and euthanasia the dictionary definitions themselves are what are asserting that a human life is being taken. These are objective statements of fact in and of themselves.
The legal “Right to Life” is therefore much easier to defend than many think. Often some may confuse the debate and bring themselves greater challenges by insisting the contention is about their faith or religious tenets. Again, it is certainly a complement to one’s religion that they show care for other human beings, but that does not make the issue about their religion, and we would be well advised to not let it become so.
As a movement and as a nation, we come from a diversity of faiths. What unites us in our movement–and as Americans–is our commitment to certain unalienable rights, and the paramount among these is the right to live.
“The Right to Life” is about public policy. This entire debate was made about pubic policy when a Supreme Court made an imperious decision to sweepingly change the public policy of all the individual States in 1973.
If those who disagree with you say, “Well that’s just because of your religion,” or, “That’s your opinion,” make sure you point out the objective facts regarding taking human life.
Those facts are on your side; and facts are terrible things to waste.