11/4/08

Well, it's happened. The Democratic Party has finally achieved a tri-fecta: Presidency, Senate, House of Representatives. It's been a very long campaign, and Americans have spoken. Their king has come (He's not my king.).

My sincere hope is that the change will truly be for the good. Based on my own observations and on my conversations both with like and unlike-minded individuals, I don't foresee a greater good coming. I see legalized abortion, kindergarden sexual education classes, and further advancement of the homosexual agenda to be recognized as a minority class and thereby gain civil rights. I see incremental tax raises and a general movement towards moral uncertainty and ambiguity. I see change coming.

Our new president seems to me to believe in the power of knowledge and the right of a person to choose what he/she wants regardless of the moral implications of that knowledge. Unfortunately, Obama's pro-choice stance is based in the incredibly limited reality of "right until proven wrong". But, how can an upstanding American citizen disagree with his views? Are they unpatriotic? On the contrary, they resonate with "innocent until proven guilty". What ideal could be more patriotic? They are absolutely patriotic. But, I won't say they're right. 

There is an incredible amount of evidence supporting the idea that life begins with fertilization. I hold this view myself. However, I do not believe that awareness begins with fertilization. Does a zygote know it exists? I don't think so. But, as cells multiply and take on the shape of a human, it becomes increasingly harder to tell just when cognizance comes into effect. Tragically, there's a medical double standard in regards to threatening one's life-potential. 

Hypothetical Horace, age 7, has just fallen into a comatose state and has likely suffered brain damage enough to make him mentally challenged. Horace's life-potential has taken a sharp turn. Though his life may still be enjoyable for him and others, it is certain that his care-taker just inherited a good deal of day-to-day difficulty. There are now two options:

1. Difficult - Raise and love Horace.
2. Easy - Kill Horace while he's unaware.

I grant that the second, easy option might not be so easy if Horace's care-takers have fond memories of life before the impediment. Luckily, this difficulty can be eliminated by reducing Horace's age until memories and relational connection based on experience are no longer part of the equation. For this example, we'll say the necessary age is now 3 seconds old. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that a 3 second old person is unaware he is a person at all. Maybe he physically feels things, but it is reasonable to assume he doesn't comprehend these feelings. So, were he to be killed, the only result would be elimination of Horace's life potential...

Do you see the problem? If it's morally wrong to kill a 7 year old, why should it be any less wrong to kill a 6 year old, a 2 year old, a newborn, an infant being birthed, an infant still in gestation? It is just as wrong, it just doesn't hurt others as much. After killing an unborn baby, there's really no relational reminiscing to do. You don't remember that time you took him to the lake to watch the ducks because, you didn't take him. In fact, you eliminated his potential to ever see those ducks. You didn't even ask what he wanted. Granted, he couldn't communicate even if he had wanted a chance to live and see ducks. But, coma patients can't communnicate. Does that make it okay to stick tongs into their brains and wiggle 'em around untill the steady beeps become one long, flat tone?

No human has the authority to decide if another should live or die. That's why murder is wrong. Hypothetical Dale claims he has the authority to choose whether Horace lives or dies. From where is this authority obtained? If Dale is merely human, then, by Dale's logic, any other human should have the authority to choose whether Dale lives or dies. 

People either have a right to live or they have the right to kill and be killed. If people have a right to live, then killing is wrong because it removes the victim's potential to fulfill that right. The two rights are incompatible. One must be, the other must not. I believe people have a right to live. I believe people have souls and minds and are capable of loving and having opinions. I believe that our God-instilled-morality gives us this right to life.

Our new president seems to me to believe in the power of knowledge and the right of a person to choose what he/she wants regardless of the moral implications of that knowledge. He believes that people have the right to live and the right to kill. His election to president is historically relevent in large part because he is part of a minority. And, minorities care that they are minorities because they fear their collective voice won't be heard. 

Unborn people are of a different minority. They are incapable of communication. It is assured that their collective voice will not be heard because they have no voices in the first place. How is it that one man, who is now in a position to make the African-American minority voice heard, can give authority to kill another unvoiced minority? Firstly, had another done this while he was once part of that infant minority, he never would have been president. Secondly, the authority to kill is not Obama's to give.

Unfortunately, I can not scientifically prove the presence nor absence of the supernatural entity we call the mind in an unborn child. I doubt there will ever be definitive proof. And, as long as there is not proof, the idea that any progressive stage of a zygote is alive will be left to interpretation. A person could still say that eliminating this progressed zygote's life-potential is "right until proven wrong." And, that person would never be called unpatriotic.

Abortion is just one of the many concerning topics surrounding this coming presidential term. I haven't even started with homosexual "marriage" or economic policies. Needless to say, I am deeply concerned about the state of our national future. I disagree with many of the Democratic Party's views, and the party's primary cause for liberty before morality is not encouraging.

Obama will be the president for at least 4 years (probably only 4 years if he seriously tries to enact change). I currently don't agree with his views. But, I will respect him as he has been entrusted with a great amount of authority. My prayer is that my current concerns are shown to be foolish. I would like nothing more than to be able to look back and say, "I shouldn't have been so upset. It's all worked out for the good." Until that day when my fears are abated though, I will be watching scrutinously and praying steadfastly.

May God help America.