Issue 38.16
The right of life or the right “to” life is foundational to any system of a just government. If a government has the ability to deprive us of life (except in exceptional circumstances), it creates the destruction of all other rights. Can any right be defended if the government can cause the death of those who stand up for that right? The answer is obvious.
Crimes considered “capital” (or worthy of death) are very few in number and, in many states, have become nonexistent. In some states and within the Federal Government, there are still a few crimes that qualify. These are typically crimes such as murder, torture, kidnapping and treason. In all of these cases, the government must prove to a jury that, not only did the person commit a heinous act that deprived others of their unalienable rights (especially life and liberty), but that there was a pre-meditated intent to do so. For example, killing someone in an auto accident or a bar fight usually would not rise to the level of a “capital” crime. Even treason would have to be shown as an intentional act committed with the understanding that it would impact the lives and freedoms of the nation’s citizens to a significant level.
One of the biggest debates of our day is that of whether a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy. In other words, does anyone have the right to take the life of another person for their own convenience or well-being? The debate hinges on the determination of whether and when an unborn child is a “person” to whom those unalienable rights also extend. If and when a child becomes a person in the eyes of the law is the central question. If the child is a person, no one has the right to take from it the life it has and will experience. If it is (as some proclaim) only a part of the mother’s body and not a person, the mother has a right to remove it for her benefit. In my mind, viewing an unborn child as nothing more than a tumor or cancerous growth that can be removed without any consideration is one of the greatest evils of our day and has brought upon our nation the judgements of a just God. However, I do understand that, in extreme circumstances, the life and health of the mother must be considered in balance with the life and health of the child. In other instances, the life of the child is unsustainable because of deformity or other causes, and continuing the pregnancy may damage or end the life of the mother. When our laws come into integrity with these principles, we can again seek blessings of protection and freedom from God.
I should be clear that I am not equating abortion with capital murder. There is gray area here because of the considerations of the well-being of the mother, but we are entirely too cavalier when it comes to the rights and well-being of the unborn child. It is clear to me that late-term abortions are depriving that child of their unalienable rights and should not occur.
Another issue concerning the right to life is war. Does a government have the right to fight unending wars at the cost of lives on both sides of the conflict? This is a thorny question and probably deserves at least a separate article. In the meantime however, I believe that is the reason our Founders made it imperative that, before entering into armed conflict, Congress must carefully consider the cost in lives and treasure that any such action would incur. When faced with the loss of life or loss of freedoms to our citizens created by invasion by foreign nations, it is fairly obvious that we are justified in stopping that invasion, even at the costs envisioned. The Founders intentionally did not allow the responsibility of declaring war or commitment of lives to wars to be on one person (the President), but to a group of representatives of the States and the people (Congress) that would have to answer to their constituents for the costs incurred. I recognize that, in our day of terrorist activity, limited and surgical military operations are sometimes needed when authorized by our representatives.
I believe we are far too willing to commit the lives of our young people to danger or death in the service of making other countries do things “our way”. We are only justified in defensive war; not in nation-building or preventative actions against those nations that might threaten us “some day.” Even in the Revolutionary War, we did not seek to destroy our oppressor, England. We simply threw off the yoke of their tyranny in order to guarantee to ourselves and our posterity the unalienable rights we insisted on defending. That same rule should apply to our actions today.
Lynn West is a thinker, a teacher and a patriot. You can reach him through email at forgingthefuture2021@gmail.com or through this newspaper. Liberty is a state of being which must be continually created. These articles can help all of us discover the ways we can contribute to that outcome.