Posted February 25, 2005
The subject of "rights" has been in the news a lot lately. Gay rights, abortion rights, right to die, civil rights to name a few. It seems that we are a culture obsessed with rights. We live in a nation with a founding philosophy that everyone is entitled to certain "unalienable rights" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What seems to be lost on many is the counterbalancing principle of responsibility...
To champion "rights" without a corresponding emphasis on responsibility leads to the rights of others being compromised or even lost. Special interest groups advocating support for their "rights" attempt to gain sympathy by appealing to emotion—often short circuiting objective, rational, logical thought. Euphemistic terminology also clouds their objectivity.
For example, abortion advocates often use terms such as "pro-choice," "reproductive rights" and "planned parenthood" to justify terminating the life of an unborn child. The "pro-choice" philosophy asserts that a fetus is simply a part of a woman's body and hence subject to her choice. Thus abortion is seen as just as much an option as an appendectomy. That simply does not compute when scientific facts are considered.
Modern technology enables identifying a wide range of human responses of a fetus. Life clearly begins prior to childbirth. Yet one recent aspiring presidential nominee even had the audacity to assert that the woman carrying a child has the right to determine when life begins.
Despite the legal precedent set by the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion, another court recently convicted Scott Peterson of double murder of his pregnant wife, implying that killing the unborn child also constitutes murder. If life does not begin until birth, what sense does this make?
"Reproductive rights" is also misleading. Appearing to suggest the right to reproduce, it actually implies the right not to reproduce by taking the extreme action of terminating a pregnancy. Similarly, "planned parenthood" doesn't mean planning to have children but rather limiting the size of families, again often by the means of an abortion. Of course, planning the number of children desired and the time of their birth is fine—but not by means of terminating a new life via abortion.
What is not usually mentioned in this contentious dialogue is the right to life of the unborn but living child, who tragically has no way to seek its rights, let alone enjoy liberty or pursue happiness. With a woman's ability to conceive and give birth comes the responsibility to bear and rear the child. Claiming "rights" without accepting the responsibility that goes with those rights is indicative of how utterly self-centered much of our society has become. Amazingly, the apostle Paul predicted that this state of affairs would plague our modern world (2 Timothy 3:1-5).
"Same-sex marriage" advocates claim they are being discriminated against and denied civil rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Ignored is the fact that governments have the right to pass laws for the good of their constituencies. Civil rights do not include the right to selfishly defy the existing laws of God or man. Everyone has a right to enjoy the privileges of citizenship, but everyone also has a responsibility to obey the existing laws (Romans 13:1-5).
Furthermore, civil rights are not geared to relationships but to individuals. It is not necessary to formalize illegal relationships in order to vote, secure visiting rights in a hospital, or other rights extended to individuals. To tamper with the definition of marriage that God instituted at creation (Genesis 2:24) and that has been the practice of our national culture from the beginning of our nation should not be an option. Thankfully, the overwhelming margins of success of traditional marriage bills in all eleven states this past election year offer a clear mandate to reject any other definition of marriage.
In our pluralistic, post-modern age many decry imposing standards of right and wrong by assuming that there is no such thing as absolute truth. This belief combined with failure to balance rights with responsibilities will not bring freedom but anarchy. Laws and standards are necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of everyone. So the Bible speaks of "the perfect law of liberty" (James 1:25).
Paul wrote in Romans 8:7 that human nature "... is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so." God has a plan to melt away this hostility and replace it with a receptive heart and mind (Ezekiel 11:17-21; 36:24-28). The prophet Isaiah prophesied of the time when ultimately all nations will accept the law of God as the universal standard of life and peace (Isaiah 2:1-4).
