Once upon a time . . . it was legal to buy and sell people in America , well black people, that is. Because it was legal to do, even many Christians assumed it was right to own slaves, and so they did.
During the time that slavery was socially sanctioned, individual ideas and affections regarding the practice varied greatly. Many were those who, directly or indirectly, benefited from slavery. To be sure, slavery did offer advantages to some. At the time, many people had no personal involvement in the degrading practice and, therefore, had little or no interest in the issue. Perhaps they reasoned: "Well, I have never owned a slave nor would I, but who am I to impose my views on others?" Some folks most likely had moral convictions about slavery yet were paralyzed by embracing a simple and apparently accurate argument: "We can't legislate morality, you know!"
For a long time even the religious community was silent on the subject of slavery. In time, though, prophetic voices loudly decried the shameful practices of slaveholding and slave trading. As with every prophetic voice, however, the response of even the religious audience was mixed. Some listened and responded with repentance; others just tuned-out the message in apathetic disinterest; still others voiced strong opposition to the messages (and, of course, to the messengers).
Many were enamored with the economic benefits of slavery and felt it was their constitutional right to buy and use slaves. Perhaps some slave-owning fools of the mid 19 th Century, facing the growing anti-slavery sentiment of the day, drove buggies with bumper stickers which read: "If you don't believe in slavery, don't own one!"
Since neither you nor I were there during that tense time of the emancipation of the slaves, we are dependent upon historic records to inform us of details concerning the mammoth conflict which brought it about, a conflict which escalated over years and finally drew our nation into a bloody civil war. Our country was clearly divided on this highly controversial issue once it was raised. And this is not a fairy tale!
The longer the issue was debated the hotter it got, and the more divided we became. The U.S. Supreme Court even played a significant role. In one of its historic " dreadful" decisions, the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, the "honorable" justices ruled that black slaves were not people but property, and therefore deserved no constitutional rights or protection.
It took that bloody civil war and a 13 th amendment to our constitution to end slavery in America . Attitudes of the heart, however, are not particularly affected by constitutional amendments or any other legislative dictates. Consequently, over 130 years later, blacks are still viewed as sub-human by some people. For over 40 years of my lifetime the full civil rights of black people have been hotly debated, and racial tensions are arguably as high at the beginning of the 21 st Century as they were at the start of the 20 th .
Thank God, slavery was abolished. Thank God, the civil rights of blacks and other minority races have been promoted. Though a conflict-laden and costly journey, their freedoms and their human dignity have been well worth the necessary price paid.
A Human Rights Battle More Important Than Slavery
An even more important human rights battle, however, demands our attention in America today. Strange as it is, while we have been making aggressive steps to extend full human rights to descendents of American slaves, we have been denying the most basic rights to the most innocent of human life the unborn.
In 1857 our Supreme Court made a dreadful decision which most of us can now easily see; in 1973 that court made an even more dreadful decision. In its infamous Roe versus Wade decision, by a five to four vote, our Supreme Court ruled that the unborn were not persons but mere parts of or possessions of other persons their mothers. Thus, according to these five judges, pre-born human beings deserve no protection under our constitution. While the already born clamor for their "rights" to government benefits, foul speech, perverse behavior, and freedom from religion, the unborn are granted no rights. Though this situation is more fitting in a world of fantasy than in reality, unfortunately, it is not a fairytale!
Now, I want to explain to you exactly why our Supreme Court was just as wrong in 1973 as it was in 1857. The role of the Supreme Court is to make decisions on laws or lower court rulings regarding their constitutionality. They must appeal not only to the letter of the constitution but to the spirit of the document, as they apply it to contemporary situations brought before them. And this is precisely where they failed to do their godly duty in 1973.
Remember, please, that the Supreme Court justices are judges, men and women intimately acquainted with our judicial system and the founding principles which both underlie and permeate it. Five of the justices in the Roe V. Wade decision are guilty of violating some of the most basic principles of our entire system of justice. They failed to protect innocent life in the place of doubt. Stay with me as I elaborate this point.
Under the judicial system of our great nation, when people are accused of committing crimes worthy of death, we must deal with them in a very cautious fashion. A bias is clearly present to protect the innocent from wrongful death. We prefer many other wrongs to this one even the wrong of a guilty person going free. Judges and jurors must presume an accused person to be innocent until such evidence is presented which persuades them to the contrary. And that evidence must be convincing evidence, removing all reasonable doubt from the minds of all twelve jurors. Death sentences are never handed out to even the most vile criminals with only 11 of 12 jurors convinced of their guilt. Yet, with at five to four vote, our Supreme Court allowed the execution of some 1.5 million absolutely innocent American children each year since 1973.
Granting Benefit of Doubt
The evidence, honestly examined, leaves far more than reasonable doubt that what is being destroyed in an abortion is merely a meaningless mass of reproductive tissue in a pregnant woman's body. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming to the contrary. From the moment of fertilization the single microscopic cell formed has all 46 chromosomes which constitutes the specific genetic material of a unique human being. Once upon a time . . . you were a single-cell person. All that was added from that time until now was nutrition and a safe environment, in which to live and grow. And this, fantastic as it is, is no fairytale!
What is conceived in a woman's womb is not the mother's body, and every honest physician will affirm this fact. Consequently, what is destroyed in abortion is not a small part of the mother's body, but the entire body of an entirely different person (small and vulnerable as it admittedly is).
Granting for sake of argument that the nature of a developing fetus is a debatable matter, the bedrock values of the whole legal system of America still demand that the unborn receive the benefit of doubt and not be destroyed simply because they are not wanted by the mothers who conceived them. When the selfish choices of one person are pitted against the very life of another, there must be no doubt which right is to be protected in a civilized society.
To simply deny personhood to the unborn in order to allow their wanton destruction is even more shameful than denying personhood to black Africans so that someone could own them. Just as there were those who benefited from the slave trade, many have found abortion to be a very appealing solution to their immediate problems; and, of course, in the expedient procedure itself, some physicians have discovered a very lucrative business. They deserve more contempt than any slave trader, nonetheless!
Technology Does Not Change Morality
The entire structure of morality in the human race rests upon this self-evident truth: the fact that one can do something does not mean that one should do it. Morals define the difference between what one should and should not do, not what one can and cannot do. Technological changes of our age expand exponentially what we can do; but technology does not change morality.
Killing children who are peacefully growing inside a mother's womb is no more that mother's right of choice than killing them when they are three days old, three months old, three years old, thirteen years old, or thirty years old. The abortion issue is no more about freedom of choice than slavery was about free enterprise. The central issue is about treating human beings with the honor befitting them as defined by the Creator of inalienable rights. And that cherished belief did not come from a fairytale either!
Anyone should know, most of all the highest judges in our land, that the framers of our constitution never had in mind the granting of freedom to mothers to abort their unplanned children. There have been for thousands of years mothers-to-be who did not want to be. And there shall, no doubt, continue to be such mothers until the end of human history. No child deserves a death sentence merely because the ones who conceive them do not want them.
Abortion and the Decay of Culture
We must all realize that failure to respect the most innocent human life, and tolerance of violence against these innocent ones, sets in motion a more widespread disrespect for life and an appetite for violence that will surely erode the civilization out of our culture. It is not coincidental that, as we have sanctioned violence against the most innocent members of the human race, we have seen the escalation of violence among those of us far less innocent.
Because our Supreme Court has failed in its duties since 1973 regarding the protection of the most basic human right for those most needing their protection, another constitutional amendment will probably be needed. And this will not happen until a sane and sober majority of Americans demand an end to legalized abortion on demand.
Finally, let us all remember that the U.S. Supreme Court is not THE SUPREME COURT. Every one of those judges will one day stand before the Judge of the universe. So will you and I. It should be clear to everyone that the Supreme Court justices are not infallible. They are prone to have their judgment confused as they imbibe of the wine of worldly wisdom, fashionable in their day. We must not be drunk with them! Precious human lives, innocent human lives, are at stake. And this is no fairytale!
I close with this poignant and sobering word from the Scriptures: "Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, But we knew nothing about this,' does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?" (Proverbs 24:11,12) Let us wash our hands of the blood of these innocent and voiceless victims by resisting their enemies who first take away their humanity in order to take away their lives.
Dane Tyner is founder and director of Home Improvement Ministry, a Christian family counseling service in Tulsa, OK.The ministry website is http://www.forhim.org.
» left by ELM from Virginia (162 days 18 hours ago.)
If the unborn are a possession of the woman carrying them, which gives that person the ability to "do with her own body as she sees fits", then what prohibits a mother from carrying that same rationale forward to say that what was a product of her womb is also her possession, and thus she has the right to terminate those outside the womb when they become too much work, too much trouble, a disappointment, or disobedient? Where is the line drawn? The line is the heartbeat -- when you stop that you have committed murder. That's the judgment of our courts -- why does this not extend to those heartbeats in the womb?
Brian, thanks for reading and offering affirming feedback. I must confess that for the first 10 years of Roe V Wade I just had an opinion about abortion. I was against it; I believed it was wrong. Then, in the early '80's I was challenged by a pro-life activist to have more than an opinion, to have a conviction about abortion which would lead me to act. Admittedly, I can do hardly anything, but what I can do, I do.
Very well thought out, Mr. Tyner. I’m sure you will receive a lot of pats on the back by those who believe this is the end of the story. To those who see a broader picture, it will likely make them shake their heads and ask, “will they ever understand?” I would like to see you paint a more complete picture of this issue.
There is only one point that I disagree with you on. Your portrayal of the religious community being silent on the issue of slavery I believe is inaccurate. Several religious denominations which are very large today were actually started for the explicit purpose of their member’s to be allowed to be slave owners. (Google “SBC slavery” for more info.) I think that you will find that historically in America, Christians were more than complacent in the issue of slavery. Add to this that many of the racist movements consider themselves Christian (Google “KKK Christianity”) and you’ll see that there is more to this issue than what your article portrays.
Now what your portrayal of this issue leaves out: There is a perception that white evangelicals are exploiting the abortion issue to justify their racial prejudices. The picture you paint can not be complete without addressing this.
The Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts has said long before Barack Obama was elected that there is basically zero chance of a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v. Wade. Knowing this, it would seem that Christians are using the abortion issue as a smoke screen to justify their support of a political party which has shown itself to favor wealthy white men over minorities. Whether this is true or false, it is the perception. It is part of the story, and it must be addressed.
Many things done by the Republican Party, including their historical and constant opposition to civil rights legislation, their penchant for taxing the less-than-wealthy rather than the wealthy, their inaccurate portrayal of Barack Obama as Muslim, a socialist, and not a U.S. citizen, and their stated desire to return to “the good old days” (when minorities had fewer rights), support this perception. Just this past weekend when President Obama was addressing the graduating class at Notre Dame, he stated that we must we must reduce the number of abortions in America. Many graduates sat silent in protest to this statement. What, after all, are they protesting?
Again, I would like to see a more complete portrayal of this issue.
John, thank you for reading and responding. You raise several issues that are in some way related to my article. Some of these I agree with and some I do not. It would take much more than an article to address my thoughts on all of these matters. I really am not much concerned about the perception people have of white evangelicals, republicans, or even of Christians here. I think anyone who reads this piece can tell that I care about the lives of unborn children. Surely you are right that I will receive some affirmation from those who agree with me; I will probably take some hits from those who love abortion; and unfortunately many will read this who have learned to master sitting on the fence on controversial issues and will continue with their butt stuck to the fence. It is my earnest hope and prayer that some will be nudged off of that fence. Regarding your comment about the improbability of a constitutional ammendment about abortion, I suspect that there was a day when powerful people proposed that we would never pass the 13th ammendment in America. But they were wrong. It is certain that no constitutional ammendment to protect life in the womb shall happen as long as most of our populace only has opinions and no passion on this subject.
Well written position but I would like to read your position on:
1. pregnant as the result of rape,
2. pregnancy in very young girls by concent but below the age of informed concent,
3. pregnancy that has a very high probability of causing the death of the mother,
4. pregnancy where the fetus is known to have a life long physical and/or mental disorder that is likely to be beyond the capability of the parents to care for,
Let me just respond to your first question. This response should help you understand where I am on the other issues you raise. On the very rare occasion that a child is conceived via rape, I still believe that it is a PERSON that is conceived. Thus, I would not support the killing of this person who is the most innocent person in the situation. Nowhere in America, that I know of, do we put convicted rapists to death. Though that is a terrible crime, I have never even heard of a rapist being given a life sentence (unless for multiple convictions). Our warranted sympathies with a rape victim, coupled with our warped view of the fetus, lead most of us in America to choose death for the one so conceived. I could well understand that a rape victim might not want to raise a child whose father was her rapist. Still, she could give her child life and let it be raised by adoptive parents who would give him/her the love deserved. And that, I believe, would be the right moral choice for the woman.
Moral choices are about right versus wrong, not easy versus hard, nor inexpensive versus costly. Thus, moral choices sometimes demand that we do hard things, costly things.
Finally, I have NO problem with the unfortunate choice that is required (rare as it is) to abort a fetus where the physical life of the mother is truly endangered. Where a physician finds that only one life can be saved, I'll vote for Mom everytime.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
tweet this!
