Huckabee Says Abortion is a Federal Issue
Mike Huckabee, candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, says that states shouldn’t be given the chance to determine their own abortion views.
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee rejects letting states decide whether to allow abortions, claiming the right to life is a moral issue not subject to multiple interpretations.
“It’s the logic of the Civil War,” Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. “If morality is the point here, and if it’s right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can’t have 50 different versions of what’s right and what’s wrong.”
“For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can’t simply have 50 different versions of what’s right,” he said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”
As much as I like Huckabee’s positions, I have to take issue with this. Government’s job is not to say what is right, but what is legal. Sometimes those two coincide, and sometimes they don’t.
I don’t believe that government should be the leading indicator of what’s right and wrong. It is very unfortunate that, for too many people, if it’s legal then it’s right. However, we can’t use that situation to then say that the government should pass laws against all that is immoral. This may sound funny to some, coming as it does from this evangelical Christian, but there are a couple of ideas at play here.
First is the idea that any set of rules made by men as to what is right and wrong is, by definition, going to be flawed. We can’t do it, and that’s taking on a job that God has exclusive rights to. Passing a low solely because it fits my moral code is, therefore, not a good idea. (Bear in mind that I’m emphasizing “solely”. We’ll come back to that.)
Second is the idea that my personal morality can inform what I want government to do. So based on my reading of the Bible, I may be against state-run gambling. My concern over taxing the foolish and government-sponsored co-dependence are moral stances, and they contribute to my opinion of laws regarding them. The Civil Rights laws of the 1960s were largely informed by a religious view of equality among people, equal in the sight of God. The laws were both morally right and a proper use of government in that they promoted liberty, equally, for all. For example, gambling promotes slavery to an addition.
So, while writing a pure moral code into a man-made document is doomed to fail, there is still a place for the Christian (and any religious person) in the creation of laws for the state or country. And while I appreciate Gov. Huckabee’s stance on the issue of abortion, I’m a little leery of him suggesting that the federal government should do it solely because it is right. That suggestion opens the door to abuses by more well-meaning politicians, and can result in less liberty as the government encroaches on the individual.
Now, having said all of that, I’m going to spin you in further circles and say that I do agree that the matter of abortion should be decided at the federal level. The reason is that protecting the right to life is a primary function of government, and without the right to life, no other rights can be enjoyed. Further, the Roe v Wade decision did nothing but muddy the waters as to what the Constitution really says about privacy. So yes, I think it should be overturned, and indeed I think abortion, as a matter of liberty, should be a matter of federal legislation.
But to do it because it is “right”, from a political standpoint, invites abuse. Government has a specific purpose and it should be used accordingly.
[tags]Mike Huckabee,abortion,gambling,church and state,morality,liberty[/tags]
Filed under: Abortion • Christianity • Culture • Doug • Government • Religion • Republicans
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
I agree that the government should “not be the leading indicator of what is right and wrong – that’s why we have the Bible. We determine what is right and wrong from God’s Word. The Bible says, “Thou shalt not murder.” Do you not believe law or “what is legal” should enforce Biblical principles? You wouldn’t support a Bible-based law? God made it one in Israel.
It sounds like to me you are for “separation of church and state” which is found nowhere in the Constitution. That was a staement made by Thomas Jefferson referring to the fact that there should not be a government religion. The fact of the matter is, Thomas Jefferson is also the one who said, “Government and religion are one in the same.” I say, you better get used to it because one day when Christ returns that’s the way its gonna be too.
By the way, why shouldn’t the government “do it SOLELY because it is right”? Good grief! What DO you want? This is pretty simple stuff! It’s a black and white issue! Right and wrong DO apply in politics!
First off, I’m not a “separation of church and state” type, at least by the standards of today’s misreading of the First Amendment. I think you and I would likely agree that it’s being inappropriately applied.
I believe that God had a special plan for Israel and indeed He was their law. There was not, as far as I know, a similar arrangement with America. As much as our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were influenced by Christianity, and as much as I’m thankful for that, our government is a civil government, not a religious one, though religious influence on it is perfectly good.
Let’s take another example from the 10 Commandments: Honor your Father and Mother. It’s the right thing to do, but should we have a law against dishonoring them? How about a law to keep the Sabbath day holy? If you don’t think those should be civil laws, are you not then not wanting the law to enforce biblical principles? It’s pretty black and white, no?
The church gives the spiritual and moral law and the government gives the civil law. Often, those two speak the same on a specific issue, and, unfortunately, speak differently. At the same time, there are things where the civil law won’t speak to the religious law (keeping the Sabbath) and where the civil law will speak to something the religious law doesn’t speak to specifically (drunk driving). There is a separation, but, as I’m sure you’d agree, not quite the separation that many folks think it is.