The True Darkness Behind April 8, 2024...
I call heaven and earth to witness against you TODAY, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore, choose life, that [both] you AND your offspring may live! Deuteronomy 30:19
We hear lots of signs of what today's eclipse may be, but none seem to be clearer than Deuteronomy 30:19. As we look to the sky, may we be reminded that God is using the heavens and the earth today as a witness of the choice that has been set before us. What better time than during a solar eclipse to point out that death is nothing more than the absence of life and darkness is nothing more than the absence of light. Satan is constantly trying to find ways to blot out the life and light which is Christ from the world around us. But we should be strengthened and encouraged that no matter how intense his plot is for darkness, it can never last. The light ultimately always bursts forth into the world around us. This is true in nature, and it is also true regarding laws and policy. The light of truth is always what we should seek to illuminate our path.
Politicians would have us believe there is no due north regarding principles of liberty. Rather they present a bunch of subjective beliefs and opinions from which we are to choose to reflect the "will of the people." But the truth is that there are pre-existing principles that are eternally true, principles capable of leading nations out of darkness into light. Our founding fathers believed in such principles and sought to discover and implement them. These standards are established by the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, and they grant to us inherent rights. These rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our founders understood the proper role and function of government was to secure these rights. They understood that when governments failed to secure these rights, it was the duty of the people to throw off such tyranny.
Unalienable rights cannot be left to the whim and caprice of the "Will of the People" as human will is subjective and ever-changing. Consequently, when it comes to preserving an unalienable right a State's Rights' response is not a proper solution. For any government to be legitimate it MUST secure unalienable rights. Slavery, which is an assault on the inalienable right of liberty, was a blight on our nation. It was inherently wrong universally and could never be made right by either the "Will of the People," differing States' Rights, or subjective declarations of any government. Such assaults on unalienable rights cannot ever become legitimate law, and certainly not "the law of the land.". In the words of Sir William Blackstone, any law that is contrary to the Laws of Nature and Nature's God cannot be law. Attempts by mankind to make such a law is in the words of Augustine "unjust." It was this very understanding that enabled Martin Luther King to decry the evils of racial bigotry in his letter from the Birmingham Jail where he distinguished "just laws" from "unjust laws." Unjust laws quite simply can never truly be law.
There are few issues more contentious and divisive than the battle over the right to life of mothers and the right to life of the babies they carry. In the haze of contention, it would seem that the due north of this issue is the only trail that can help establish proper policy. That due north can only be found by reminding ourselves of the proper role of government; this standard is objective and can't be determined by the subjective whim and caprice of "the will of the people." The role of government to secure the God-given inherent rights of life and liberty can never be relegated to a States' Rights issue. For laws to be just they must secure the rights of life and liberty for both the mothers and their babies. This only becomes confusing when we forget the proper role of Government.
To secure these rights, neither the government nor the medical community needs to play God. We simply work to give each the best possible chance to live a healthy and free life. Most of the time the life of the mother is not at risk, only the life of the child. This is true even when in the very rare and almost unheard of occasions where the baby was conceived through rape or incest. The maxim that bad facts make for bad law is true. Consequently, laws are to be made on established principles. Accordingly, the life of both mother and child should be protected by our system of laws. Where there is no threat to the life of the mother, there is simply no issue...both get to live.
This tension only exists in the also rare circumstances where the life of the mother is placed at risk by the life of the child. But even in this scenario, there is exactly zero reason why the baby should be brutally murdered by the thrusting of a pair of scissors into the base of a baby's skull and prying them open, or alternatively burning it alive with saline, then dismembering the baby with the potential risk of bone fragments being left within the mother. This is not medical science, but ancient barbarism. There is no way that medical advancements have not been made beyond these archaic methodologies that are more horrific than bleeding with leeches.
In the rare instances where both lives are at risk, the response should be a preterm delivery, giving both the mother and her baby the best possible chance to live. The truth is that the solution to all our problems does not leave either side as far apart as one might think. You see, while this intense culture war has been raging across our land, a miraculous thing has been taking place. The age of viability due to medical advances has continued to move younger and younger. In reality it has left us with a gap that is the distance of only 12 weeks or 3 months and shrinking. While most abortions occur at 13 weeks, most babies would survive at 25 weeks.
Passing public policy that is geared to protecting the unalienable right to life of both the mother and the baby means NEVER allowing the baby to be brutally murdered, and only in the rare cases where the mother may die, allowing the baby to be delivered prior to carrying the child full term, but with the goal of doing everything medically possible to save both the baby as well as the mother. The laws should likewise set the date for such preterm delivery at or after 25 weeks, but with an allowance for doctors to conduct such preterm delivery earlier than that where it is medically necessary. However, the laws should be written in such a way that any preterm delivery under 25 weeks would be open to higher scrutiny.
Passing laws only where the life of the mother is at risk that allow for premature delivery once a baby has reached 25 weeks aligns with the goal of securing the unalienable right to life for both the mother and her baby. It also enables the medical community to keep its vow to "do no harm." Doing no harm means no harm either to the mother or to the baby, and this should always be the goal.
As to other policies, in all other situations where there may be unwanted babies, allowing faith-based initiatives for ministries to cover the costs for the births, medical care, and adoptions also makes sense. This is what finding solutions that ultimately secure the rights of life and liberty to all involved should look like, and this is the ultimate role of government. Only by reminding our politicians, elected officials, and even ourselves of this proper role of government can we hope to find liberty and justice for ALL.