With the encouragement of a friend (shout out to Chris Neiswonger) I’ve decided to broaden my audience beyond my friends on facebook:) Just about every day I have an interesting encounter with someone who is ready and willing to be engaged on various topics, and here’s the latest occurrence. November 4th, prior to the official announcement of Barack Obama as the president-elect, I posted an excellent article written by Dennis Prager on my facebook profile page, hoping to get some dialogue going.
You can find the article at: Will Americans Really Vote to Fundamentally Transform America?
A good friend of mine responded with the following comment: “I don’t understand why anyone would want to impose their moral style of living on any other peaceful human being. Especially when that person still has the freedom to live as they choose. Does God not teach us the Golden Rule?” Simple and straightforward enough concern, I suppose, from someone who has a “live and let live” mentality.
I responded with the following statement (or novella, if you will): First of all, I’d like to say that you actually eloquently stated my purpose in posting this article written by Dennis Prager. I agree with you in that I don’t want anyone imposing their beliefs on me. I certainly don’t appreciate someone telling me how to live and imposing their extreme and unfair political philosophy on me. I don’t believe that it’s fair for certain people in society to be forced to give of their hard-earned money to others while perpetuating a welfare mentality among others. In the Bible (Acts 2) people gave to those in need, but it was voluntary; when you begin to force something like that you’re infringing on someone else’s freedom, which is a slippery slope to communism.
I’m all for balance: in the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives; however, now that one party has taken over everything the door to dialogue is closed, at least for the next few years. Right now half the country feels as though its fate has been decided by what the philosopher John Stuart Mill termed as the “tyranny of the majority.” Democrats must admit they would feel exactly the same way if the shoe was on the other foot and Republicans had taken over. I’d probably feel the same way too if just the Republicans were in charge! I just want balance in the government; America is, after all about inclusion and diversity. Checks and balances were established for a reason, and we’re about to find out why very soon.
Now, as a follower of Christ I’m obligated to obey every law Obama enacts, and continue to pay my taxes, and abide by the law insofar as it doesn’t cause me to violate God’s ultimate law of not harming anyone else (Romans 13). However I am also supposed to be an advocate on the behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves such as the unborn children who will now be subjects of abortion on demand. My question for Obama supporters is “What right does Obama have to impose his views on the unborn baby?” Since he also believes in infanticide, I would like to know “What gives him the right to say pregnant mothers have the right to impose their views on unborn and newly-born babies?” The only characteristics that separate an unborn baby from a child that is outside of the womb is their size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency (I credit Scott Klusendorf for the “SLED” memory tool). That means they’re entitled to the same rights as anyone else.
America is far from perfect (and trust me after having endured a lot of racism I can personally acknowledge this), but it was still founded on the principles of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But we’ve taken away their one right to life, which makes all the other rights useless. Therefore, I wouldn’t want to ever impose my moral style of living on any peaceful human being; however, this isn’t the case because we’re not dealing with peaceful human beings; we’re dealing with people who want to mortally wound others (the unborn). In this case I am following the Golden rule of doing unto others what I would have them do unto me. If I were in the womb and my mother were about to kill me I would want someone in my position to do exactly what it is I’m doing now.
Two anecdotes come to mind each time I’m confronted with the argument that we just can’t be sure whether or not fetuses are living human beings. My initial reaction is to say “Well, if you’re not sure, then you should err on the side of caution when it comes to the issue of abortion!” But I also follow up that 2 cents with two anecdotes my social ethics professor brought up in class a few years ago to drive the point home of the significance of the question we’re ignoring in the abortion debate. My professor compared the unborn baby to someone in a building that’s about to be demolished. If the demolition team had even the slightest suspicion that there was a person present in the building before the scheduled demolition, they would be foolish to say “Ok, let’s go ahead and take our chances even though we’re not sure.” No, they would stop the demolition process until they’re sure no one is actually in the building.
Another anecdote is: a mother is at her kitchen sink doing dishes. Her 5 yr old runs in behind her and asks “Mommy, mommy! Can I kill IT?” We all know that the mom’s answer will depend on what IT is (a spider, a kitten, the boy’s little brother:). The question of what IT is changes the entire course of the conversation and will help us decide where to go from this point as a nation on the issue of whether or not abortion is even in a category to be left to anyone’s choice.