Saturday, April 4, 2009


Much of modern debate is framed in terms of rights. The right to life, the right to marry, equal rights.

For abortion, this is "reproductive rights".

An article at Science Daily made me think about this, but I am not going to address the article directly.

There is a interesting paradox for Christians.

Only Christians can make a valid claim for "God-given rights". I have yet to hear a good argument from atheists about where rights come from. Most seem to be sliding into a gray area, where rights are whatever those in power decide they are (thus driving the competition for power and influence).

At the same time, the Bible urges us not to fight for our rights - but to put aside our rights in love and service to others (to put the needs of others ahead of the exercise of our rights).

Of course, when a direct command from God is in question (such as murder and abortion), then it is right to protest and disobey (within the limits of the law).

The ultimate escalation available being to put aside our rights entirely - allowing the government to imprison or even kill us. Never to overthrow the God-given authority of government.


TheDen said...

Hey Ned,

From what I remember...20 years ago! Rights were defined by John Locke hundreds of years ago.

From a secular perspective, he was able to logically deduce that we all have a right to life, liberty, and property.

The responsibility of good government is to guarantee the citizen's individual unalienable rights. These rights must be protected as they can be limited or given up.

Inalienable...rights that cannot be given up no matter what would include self preservation.

The problem with abortion is that we as pro lifers focus on the rights to life and self preservation where the pro-abortion crowd wants to focus on the rights to liberties.

The error in the pro-abortionist's thinking is that their rights violate the rights of the unborn child as the unborn child also has rights that need to be protected and also he or she has an inalienable right to protect himself. This makes abortion akin to murder as I don't have the right to take your life just as much as you don't have the right to take my life--the government must protect you and I from each other.

The abortionist's response is that life begins at birth and not at conception. They've shifted that on purpose to attempt to remove the argument about guaranteeing the protection to life.

Locke comes to a different conclusion than you. He says that if the rights of the individual are violated...especially life. (ie--the government is KILLING people) then it is necessary and good to overthrow the government. England wasn't quite doing that at the time of the revolution but the US did believe that certain rights were being violated thus the need to be independent (ref: The Declaration of Independence) In the Civil War, the Southern States felt their rights were being trampled on and attempted to overthrow the government as well.

nedbrek said...


Right, I am saying Locke built a castle on air. He had no foundation to say the things he did! Or rather, he had a "borrowed ladder"; he wanted Christian principles - without Christ.

Re. life begins at birth: That is the real irony! The abortionist decries belief in miracles, but then believes there is some miracle at birth which converts non-life to life!