By JIM PURCELL
A fact can only be a fact.
There is such a thing as singular truth and editing such a truth will inevitably turn the result into a lie. Yet, there are things that are subjective (as science has yet to provide us with answers that would make opinions unnecessary). I am talking about the great subject that redefined the Republican Party beginning in the 1980s: the right of a woman to get an abortion.
At what point is a life a life with all the rights and protections any person is entitled to have? At what point does a fetus become a person? This is the great social and medical argument that opened the gates for change in the GOP. Well, it was that and a lot of money the Religious Right put together. Still, all the money in the world cannot make a cogent argument; such a thing is needed for any issue to become a platform issue for any political party (at least in the United States). The Religious Right had both money and an issue that could not be disproved by any opposition, be that opposition political or scientific.
Roe v. Wade was the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that abotion law was based upon. The 1973 decision by the justices was to "...[to protect] a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction." This issue became the battering ram that Conservative Christians used to force their way into a mainstream political party.
I do not believe there is a side in this fight that is either entirely right or wrong. I do not espouse one side dramatically over the other. I would feel uncomfortable, as a man, attempting to legislate a woman's body and what she can or cannot do with it. Similarly, I believe in the inalienable rights for persons to have laws that protect them from undo harm. And, scientifically and morally, no one has yet definitively defined the moment the eternal spark becomes flesh and blood, resulting in a human baby with what myself and my fellow Christians believe is a soul of its own. It may well be that such a finding is impossible to discern, and the moment life is given to so much genetic matter cannot be adequately answered ever.
This essay is not intended to attempt to persuade anyone about how to believe in this matter, one way or the other. However, I do believe that this SCOTUS decision led to the creation of the Religious Right, and that this Religious Right found a home in the Republican Party because of this issue. Anti-Abotion supporters then made their way from the orbit of the GOP to the center of it over the ensuing years. It took time: years. It took money: billions of dollars. It took demonstrating the ability to win. But when Republicans started winning with the blessing of the Religious Right then it lent credibility to the argument of the Religious Right. And, after that credibility within the GOP was established, it gave the Religious Right a seat at the proverbial table within the Republican Party.
I remember the birth of the Religious Right because I was among those first people that mailed in their money to the then-newly minted Moral Majority, in 1979, and paid for my paper membership card. Following that, I received the appeals every other month for more money. Of course, I was 13 years old at the time and the money I used to send them was my allowance from my parents. Nevertheless, their mailers were unmistakable about their goals...to lobby for anti-abortion and Christian principles in American Government. In my own defense, I saw things very simply...loving God's principles was good and so that meant helping people who wanted to promote those things was also good. Of course, I was wrong.
The Rise of the Religious Right
There are people who will say that the creation of the Moral Majority was not the beginning of the Religious Right. However, I will respectfully disagree with them.
Rev. Jerry Falwell Sr. |
It is obvious that man can't declare when life begins. As you stated, there are varying opinions from everyone. We can only turn to God, who created life.
ReplyDeleteThe first instance of man becoming a living soul can be found in Genesis 2:7. It says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
From God's Word, it is obvious when life begins. When a person takes their first breath. Likewise from numerous references in God's Word, a person ceases to be alive when they "take their last breath.
God makes things very clear in His Word. Why does man think they know better than God, except they think they are better than God? Since a fetus is part of the woman carrying that fetus until that fetus takes it's first breath, it is the woman's decision to do what she thinks is best for her body.
On the one hand, we cannot govern our republic solely based on a biblical text, anyone's biblical text (Buhddist, Christian, Muslim, etc.). On the other hand, though, spiritual thought should go into our decision-making. Women are like anyone else, they should have control and determination over their bodies. Yet, how much and can this be regulated at all? However, what this piece was about is that the Religious Right used this issue to push their way to a seat at the table in the GOP (that and their money). And, the only way the Religious Right can keep that seat is to foster the politics of division. They have no interest at all in building bridges. If that were the case, then their wing of the party would not be needed. My point is that, in welcoming the Religious Right into his campaign then he made a deal with the devil.
DeleteInteresting discussion, but I will pose some differences of opinion. First, we have a biological basis for the end of life. When a person ceases to have brain wave activity, even in the presence of a heartbeat, we consider them dead. We allow, and even condone the removal of life support equipment for someone who is absent brain wave activity. Coordinated, or complex brain activity does not begin till 24 or 25 weeks. As such, it is a fair assessment to stipulate the beginning of life at that point. It just happens to coincide with the SCOTUS, around the end of the second trimester.
ReplyDeleteThere is something else worth considering too. Take some time, if you have not read it on the violinist analogy. In short, if you found yourself hooked up to a violinist against your will, and this violinist could only survive if you remained hooked up to him, then no one would fault you for severing that connection. This analogy cedes the point that the fetus may be considered fully human, but makes a legit point that the woman should still be able to sever that connection. You can play out a lot of other scenarios, and others have discussed this, but the end result is that severing this connection is legal.
I think there is a moral imperative, that would suggest that IF the fetus is fully human (has brain activity) AND there is no threat to the woman's health AND if the fetus is not the result of rape or incest, then the pregnancy to continue to term. Should we have a law to compel it? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the goal should be to reduce the incidences of unwanted, or unaffordable pregnancies, rather than fighting over the end result, the unwanted pregnancy.
Firstly, I am with you on the first trimester on a personal level, which means nothing. But, I agree. I like the comparison to end-of-life. It feels like the right answer. Again, though, who can know? I want to take your response a bit at a time and discuss. Just what you said: No one is able to state without a shadow of doubt that a fetus begins life at a certain point. And, the Religious Right entered the GOP with this knowledge tucked away. Then, they chose the most dramatic pole of this issue and used it as a tool (and they still do). They used this one issue, which could forever divide Republicans from Republicans, certainly Republicans from Democrats, and without doubt neighbor from neighbor. Because this issue gave them a regular seat at the table (combined with a lot of money). This first issue was debateable. Of course now they are trying to throw rhetoric into the GOP Platform from their limited view of the Bible as a text. Speaking as a seminary graduate who was ordinaed, their locus of faith represents a radicalized, politicized view of faith-centered questions. So much so that I would not call this view of faith strictly Christian.
Delete