This is a response to Gary Bourbeau’s piece in the Recorder’s religion section on June 4. He makes a lot of sense in his first paragraph in which he says “To strive to influence society with the gospel is not advocacy for a theocracy. A constitutional republic like ours however, with separation of powers, should allow for open debate about ideas and democratic decision-making power.”
However, soon after saying this he goes on to say “Proponents (he is referring to proponents of Roe v. Wade.) never speak of the person-hood that exists from the time of conception, and that it is unarguably the destruction of a divinely created human being possessing the same value, uniqueness and beauty at the moment of birth, as at that time.” It is at this point that if I weren’t trying to stay open and to listen even to that which on the face of it appears as to me as an obvious falsehood that I would just stop reading.
Personally, I never speak of “the person-hood that exists from the time of conception” except in contexts like this because to me it is obvious that no such personhood exists. A bunch of undifferentiated cells do not a person make as far as I’m concerned. Also, an abortion is not “unarguably the destruction of a divinely created human being” as far as I’m concerned.
Next, Bourbeau launches into a bunch of Bible quotes in which we find more on our very questionable divine origin and on how we are “awesomely and wonderfully made.” Pretty words but irrelevant to the issue for anyone who does not believe in divine creation, although I can agree on how awesomely and wonderfully made we are. But, so are mosquitoes and although I regret swatting them and do my best to live my life without killing even a mosquito, nevertheless, when they become too much to bear I do it.
And then Bourbeau does bring in the commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” But all one has to do is look around oneself to see that this commandment is not taken by Christians as a universal commandment to never kill. In fact they have been more than willing to kill hundreds of thousands who have not agreed with them on various points of doctrine, sometimes even what appear to be absurd points to those of us on the outside. After this point, Bourbeau becomes (as far as I can determine) incoherent and just plain dogmatic. I just can’t see the connection he tries to make between the commandment not to kill and his blowing off of the science of sonograms, X-rays, and DNA or his “therefore we are presented with the euphemisms: women’s health, woman’s choice, woman’s body, woman’s rights.”
Nevertheless, I grant Bourbeau’s right to voice his opinion and his right to try to influence public life. But another thing Bourbeau seems to blow off is the Constitution. In a constitutional government the majority (and by the way his point of view is not that of the majority) do not have a right to impose their beliefs on the minority in all cases. Especially in our republic they don’t have a right to impose their religious beliefs. And his beliefs about the unborn and about divine creation, his beliefs concerning what that divine creation implies about behavior are all religious beliefs.
John Guenther lives in Greenfield.