As children, our parents taught us to respect the law and the people who make it and who enforce it. That was one of the definitions of "being good"; a "good" person did not break the law. Throughout the Bible we are told to submit to authorities and pay our taxes. Paul tells us in Romans 13:1, "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God."
We also know that if a man-made law clearly violates the written Word of God and His commands, we must obey God. When Darius made a decree that no one should worship anyone but himself, Daniel violated that and prayed openly to God. For this he was thrown into the lion's den, but was spared (Daniel 6).
Some people say, "You can't legislate morality," which is an absurd statement. All law is the legislation of morality, of someone's idea of what is right and what is wrong. A law against murder is a legal declaration that murder is wrong. We do not live in a true democracy, where laws would be made by the majority. We live in a representational republic, where we elect people, presumably with some legal expertise, to enact laws for us.
Therefore, we can sometimes look at laws to determine what the general public has declared to be right and wrong. This must not be confused with what God has declared to be right and wrong. The laws of the land and the Word of God would ideally be in agreement, but sadly that is not always the case. In the case of murder and theft, our laws agree with God's commandments. In the case of abortion, they do not. What is frustrating, however, is that sometimes a law with good intentions really confuses the issues. You can learn a lot from looking at a law and seeing what it doesn't proscribe.
In Tampa, John Andrew Welden who was the son of an Obstetrician got his girlfriend pregnant. She desired to keep the baby, but the man did not want to be a father. He got one of his father's prescriptions and forged his name so as to obtain a medication that would cause an abortion. He then switched the label on the bottle so that it looked to be an antibiotic. He then gave the medicine to his girlfriend, telling her that his father had prescribed it for her because he wanted her to be on an antibiotic. The girlfriend then had an abortion, and when she went to the hospital was told that it was due to a medication.
There is a federal law called Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. It recognizes a child in-utero as legal victim, at any stage of development, if he or she is killed or injured during the commission of certain federal crimes. The young man is being charged as a criminal under this act, as well as first degree murder, for the death of the girlfriend's baby, and he faces life imprisonment. What was his federal crime? Product tampering. This is because he switched the labels on the medication.
Those who oppose abortion should be pleased that there is a law that would protect unborn life. But think about what this law is saying by what it does not do. You cannot be a legal victim unless you are a living person, but in this case you are only a legal victim if a federal crime was committed. If the Obstetrician had prescribed the medication, there would have been no problem. If the girlfriend had gone to any doctor and received the medicine, there would have been no problem. If the young man had given her the medicine openly and without changing the label, there would have been no problem. In this case, the unborn child was only a living being because a label got switched.
So, although having this law on the books is better than nothing, we cannot look at this law for moral guidance. It only tells us that as far as the federal government is concerned, the fetus is a living being under certain externally derived circumstances. And, it really is only applicable after the fact for all practical purposes. It only looks back after the fetus is killed and asks, "was a federal crime committed in the process?" It does not seem that it would provide any deterrence and prevent the death of the unborn. I am sure that if John Welden knew that the only way he was going to get into trouble was the switching of the label, he would have figured another way around it.
The news articles focus on the suffering of Mr. Welden and his wasted life and potential life imprisonment. They focus on the suffering of the young woman who lost a child that she desired to keep. They do not focus on the suffering of the unborn child who was denied a life in this world due to the selfish actions of a cold-hearted assassin. And again, he is an assassin only because he switched a label, according to the law.
A confused society enacts confusing laws. The legislation of morality requires moral clarity. A fetus cannot be a person on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays only. A well-intentioned law may prevent some tragedies, but a law that only goes part of the way sanctions others. Justice Blackmun wrote in the Roe v. Wade decision that, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment." We can only pray that on Father's Day that anyone who would father a life would recognize that regardless of how the laws are written, that the life that is created is a living person, at any stage of development, in each and every case. Our Father's laws tell us so.
2 comments:
Well said, Tim.
test
Post a Comment