CLAIM:
“I’m pro-life but that does not give me the right to force my opinion or my beliefs on another individual. It also doesn’t give any government the right to impose laws that will govern my body or anyone else’s.”
REBUTTAL:
You make two arguments. Look at your first argument: “I have no right to force my opinion or beliefs on another.”
By using “force,” I presume you mean compelling someone to “act against his or her own will.” That sounds like something everyone can agree with. Yet, in its simplicity, it misses some crucial points.
What if someone desires to harm your family? Would it be wrong to “force” that person not to hurt your family? Would it be wrong to force your opinion on that person to convince them not to harm your family, even though that is what they want to do?
Would it be wrong to force someone who has decided to rob your home not to do that?
Would it be wrong to force someone to stop picking on your child, even though that is what the person wanted to do?
What if someone insisted on driving towards you in your traffic lane? Would it be wrong to report that driver to the authorities and have him arrested for doing that, even though that is how he wanted to drive?
When you live around other people in a country, state, county, community, neighborhood, or household, particular views or “beliefs” are forced upon you that reflect the common good. Some are obvious, like agreeing not to hurt others or to take things that don’t belong to you – even if you want to! Some of these rules might be geographical – like the requirement to have your sidewalk free of snow after a snowfall, even though you did not put the snow there, and maybe you didn’t even put the sidewalk there.
An employer chooses how they will run the company and forces you to comply with those wishes if you intend to stay employed there. Municipalities establish regulations on how fast you can drive in certain parts of the town and, depending on where you live, whether you can water your lawn with your own water!
Your statement also represents a paradox. You favor a rule or law that says no one is permitted to force their opinions or beliefs on others. But by insisting on that, you violate your own decree because the insistence itself is an opinion or belief being forced on others.
That leads to the second part of your argument that you feel the government should not “impose laws that will govern my body or anyone else’s.” Does that mean you oppose efforts by the government to regulate the way food is prepared for sale in a store or a restaurant and that it should be entirely up to you whether to risk eating it or not?
What happens when the way you want to use your body is potentially harmful to you and others? Should the government regulate how you use your body at those times? How about drinking and driving, smoking in places where your smoke harms others, and selling your body for sex, even if you have a communicable disease?
I am guessing you are not absolute in this conviction. You recognize that there are exceptions. So, how do you decide on those exceptions?
If abortion ends life in the womb, as abortion advocates acknowledge, then is it wrong to say that a woman’s right to make decisions for her body ends when those decisions take the life of someone else?
You have essentially made what some call the “autonomy argument.” At its core, the “my body – my choice” mantra ignores that sometimes there is much more at stake than one body when making choices.
At its heart, the autonomy argument is a shortcut method used by many who do not want to wrestle with the ethical dimensions of opinions, beliefs, and choices. Living free of rules and opinions is not a goal for the ideal culture but a fantasy that can never be possible. Even the insistence of no regulations is itself a rule.
Christianity offers a unique solution to what appears to be a hopeless dilemma.
Christianity defends the right to make choices (Joshua 24:15; 2 Corinthians 9:7), but those choices come with parameters. A Christian cannot choose what contradicts God’s will (Galatians 5:13). A foundational element of the Christian faith is the preeminent concern for others (Matthew 23:11-12; 1 Corinthians 10:24; Philippians 2:3-5). The motivation for that concern is rooted in grasping what it means to be the object of perfect love (John 15:12; 1 John 4:19).
Within ourselves, living for life just in this world will never create the sacrificial desire to think of others ahead of yourself. An internal change must occur. The Bible calls it a “transformation” (Romans 12:2) and “renewal” (Titus 3:5). When Jesus explained this to Nicodemus, he said you must be “born again” (John 3:1-15). A person who believes that Jesus is his Savior is the object of something supernatural. They believe in something they naturally would not believe on their own (1 Corinthians 1:18). That is why a Christian no longer lives for himself but to serve God, who saved him through the sacrifice of his Son, Jesus (1 Corinthians 6:20).
The issue is not whether making rules and insisting on others’ compliance with them is wrong; the problem is the caliber of the regulations. We cannot survive in a society where everyone decides for himself what is right or wrong and how to live. The parameters of rules protect the weak and vulnerable. The ideal for society is not the achievement of full autonomy in all things. Instead, the ideal is to have the independence to love God and others in all possible ways. You cannot do that if you insist on having the full right to do what you want.
