Editor, The Beacon:
In the abortion debate, those against abortion assert a pro-life narrative. Christianity is often the foundation that informs that side of the debate. Christians have a sense of duty to defend the conceived life, that slowly gestates, develops, grows and matures (ripens) toward a birth and new life.
Conception and birth are emotional and symbolic centerpieces of life and Christianity. They are themes integrated into holidays (Christmas, Easter) and observed in rituals (baptisms, advent). Life is “God’s gift,” and because of this, Christians see life as an obligation to serve God dutifully. In this context, it is easy to understand the enthusiastic defense of the fetus, its life, its perceived right to be born, destiny to breathe life, to serve God.
However, logic does not guide this narrative. It is fact-free, ripe with assumptions and biases about life: its providence, meaning, purpose and behavior. It is a cultural sentiment, worldview and trait. It is a myth-based perspective, an evolved anachronism, systematically co-opted, and integrated into our sociocultural norms even though it ignores the objective reality of our complex human condition. Two entities exercise influence in the abortion debate when they should not: the Church (preachers) and the State (politicians).
The Church and preachers have been enabled with undeserved power for centuries, granted false legitimacy to claims of absolute moral and ethical authority, claims no single person or institution has the authority to make. Preachers from these churches abuse this power when they assert their morality and doctrine to dictate terms, conditions and decisions on the pregnancy of any being outside of the network of their own faith.
In the case of the State, politicians and officials make false claims, assert authority beyond the boundaries of their duty, property, ability or right. They enjoy special privileges with their duties and incorrectly assume entitlement and authority that is not theirs. Wealth, financial comfort and security contribute to the arrogance, prejudice, bias and egocentrism infused into the politician’s debate.
It is unfathomable and reprehensible to believe any person has the authority to intercede without invitation and without medical expertise on the private health matter of any woman, much less exercise any authority on issues that may impact her life, obligate her to carry her fetus to term, regardless of the conditions of conception and/or the physical and psychological impact on her, her immediate family, or the developing fetus and eventual infant. When a politician or a preacher is demanding the birth of a fetus regardless of any external and internal factors, it is an exercise in extremism, orthodoxy and fascism.
For this reason, I will Vote Yes on Amendment 4, and I hope you do too.
Robert ‘bYte’ Wilson
Deltona
Great letter. Thanks.
Thanks for saying that much, Sam. It’s appreiated.
Forgot to mention birthdays. The culture is totally invested emotionally in “birth”, overvalues meaning and invests excessively (monetarily and emotionally) in narcissism.