Politics // SCOTUS // Birth Control
To my friends who are heartbroken over the SCOTUS decision,
While I understand that the scientific and legal communities differ on their definitions of life and conception, it is important to understand that the opposition to ending life is fundamental to our society. Woven within our founding documents is the inherent and unalienable right to life. In the case of birth control the issue is when pregnancy begins: fertilization or implantation. Certain birth controls such as morning after pills or IUDs prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. A rational and ethical human being cannot be complicit in the ending of a human life in good conscience. So if someone believes life begins at fertilization, how can we force them to be complicit in funding of what they define as the ending of a life? Regardless of when life begins, human dignity extends beyond life to protect the dead, why can't that dignity also protect the unborn? Here are two articles that might give you some more insight into the endless debate of humanity, personhood, and conception:
To my Christian friends who are rejoicing over the SCOTUS decision,
The freedom of religion is not permission to force Christian beliefs on others. Recall that the primary job of Christians is to communicate Christ’s love to others, and the the moral law which Christians are freed from through salvation and choose to comply to is not the same ethical standard of those who do not believe. While this is not an acquiescence to moral ambiguity or injustice, this is to say that those who do not define themselves as followers of Christ do not hold the same moral standards and are not expected to. It is not the Christian’s job to bring morality or ethical awareness to all people, but to bring salvation to all people. It is our job to stand up for injustice where we can so that it can further the gospel, if the witch hunt disguised as religious freedom is deterring from your ability to share the Gospel with others, then it is a crusade of futility based in human hubris and not the humility of a faith in Jesus. Additionally, if you are to promote Christian morality in a secular society, do not pick and choose which human lives have dignity. If your policies support the preservation of human life it must be all human life, not just the ones that are conveniently political.
Here is a verse and an article that might give you more insight into why people are disappointed:
“For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.” (1 Corinthians 9:19)
To my friends who are undecided or uniformed,
Know this, the left has chosen to promote the rights of women and in turn conceded the lives of the unborn. The right, complicit in the abortion dance, has conceded the lives of the unborn to instead bicker over ancillary issues.
In this moment to concede the birth control issue and address the over arching issue of the lives of the unborn, would favor both parties. A momentary concession does not mean they condone the issues which they concede, but more universally condemn the issue which they successfully defeated.
If the issue was lives of the unborn and not reproductive control, we could come to a bipartisan agreement for the health of woman and baby, such as:
Mandatory mental health care for women who have abortions would be extended to post-abortive counseling, not just waiting periods and pre-abortive counseling, because the mental health of a woman who had an abortion is just as important as one who is contemplating it. In fact, mental health should be a bigger part of any prenatal care.
Birth control and other women's healthcare would be accessible to all women of all ages. Abortion clinics would have admitting privileges to hospitals so that women could receive adequate care in the case of medical emergencies, because health and well-being should be of top priority.
Sex education with empirically based curriculum would be mandated as part of health and science. Students learn about how the government works before they can vote, why would we exclude sex education under the excuse that they are not ready?
Abortion would be limited to viability if it was about the life of the mother and the first trimester for cases of non-consensual sex because access to birth control and sex education would make conception consensual, and therefore, the body autonomy of women would not trump the life of the unborn. Abortions past viability are just as traumatic as labor so there is no reason to abort past viability.
Finally, under the case for choice, WIC funding would increase to also support a woman's choice to parent.
Comments
Post a Comment