Give Me Plenty of Rope or Give Me Death

The year was 1775 and the british colonies were growing tired of Great Britain's taxes and having to answer to a king who ruled from a throne which stood a whole ocean away. As the king’s soldiers were filling the streets of the colonies the people began an uprise and demanded freedom. This, as we all know, led us to war with what was at that time the greatest empire of the world, Great Britain.

Freedom has been the heart beat of America and all that call this land home since our founding fathers began to build this great nation. Patrick Henry made a speech to the Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775, in which he has been credited with convincing the Virginia House of Burgesses to send in volunteer troops from Virginia to fight in the Revolutionary War. Patrick Henry is remembered for the closing words of his speech, “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!” His speech ignited a flame among those that attended the gathering. It was reported that after hearing his speech many who were present started shouting, “give us liberty or give us death!”

People were seeking their own personal freedom and leaving everything behind to make the journey to what would be known as “the land of the free” for years before the American Revolution even started. Many risked death just to taste the chase of freedom. Today we live our lives and raise our families in a land that was purchased with the blood of young and old men who dead for a belief that they, their children, and future generations had the right to live free.

I am proud to be a citizen of a free America, however, our country has been standing for freedom for 235 years and yet as our nation grows older it struggles more and more against the darkness of sin which shackles so many people to its ungodly way of life. We, as christians, have the chance to stand in as a beacon of hope for freedom that our nation’s forefather’s fought for. A freedom that is only found in the one and only living God, Jesus Christ.

If you look up the word “freedom” you will come across an interesting definition for the word. It caught my attention instantly as I read the words, “plenty of rope.” This struck my feelings of freedom deep and even changed the way that I view freedom today. The cord which was struck deepest was the first lesson of freedom that had ever been taught to me. I was raised in a home that believed and leaned on God through many trials. As a young, Pentecostal boy I learned that God created man and gave him the freedom of choice. This lesson of freedom being the first taught to me in my life made it the first thought to come to mind when reading “plenty of rope.” God gave Adam and Eve the world. They had everything, including complete freedom which was given by God, even as much as the freedom of choice. God gave them the whole garden. They had plenty of rope to walk, run, live, eat, and to do what they pleased. They had so much freedom that in Genesis 1:28 God actually gave them dominion over the land and animals. We read in Genesis 2:19 that God allows Adam to name the animals. At this point man is free, he has plenty of rope. And the rope, which is his freedom, is held in the hands of God. There was only one stipulation for this freedom given by God. Obedience.

“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Genesis 2:16-17

While in high school my mom brought home a surprise for the family. I still remember arriving home from work and walking into the living room and seeing this little puppy, which I thought at first to be a rat, running across the room from the chair to the couch. My mom and all my siblings where huddled around the room surrounding it. I believe it was my youngest sister Madison that gave the puppy her name, Cece. As she got older it became apparent that Cece loved being outside. We would put her on a leash that was very long and it wrapped around a tree in the middle of the yard. She could go anywhere in the yard that she wanted and not feel a tug around her neck except for when she would get close to the side walk and street. It was to keep her safe. We gave her “plenty of leash” to roam around the yard, dig holes, and even chase stuff. Yet, most of the time she would walk at the very edge where the leash would begin to tug on her neck, restraining her from going into areas that we deemed unsafe. Sometimes she would even try to get a running head start and lung at the very last second to try to break away from her leash. Cece may have felt restrained, restricted, possibly even trapped. My family and I put her on the leash many times. We weren’t trying to keep her from experiencing life. We knew what was beyond the leash. But all that the little puppy could see was a leash restricting her at the neck and anchored to the tree. I can almost see Adam and Eve feeling something like that. They had complete freedom. Plenty of space to roam around, lay in the sun to soak up the rays, and to do whatever they pleased, however, at some point it wasn’t enough. They wanted more. They wanted the rope, which seemed to have plenty of length before, to not be anchored down anymore. They were tired of the tug and finally, as a last ditch effort, they ran and lunged forward breaking away from the rope as they bite into the fruit of the forbidden tree. All of a sudden, the freedom they thought they were missing out on caused them to become scared and afraid.

My friend Kevin bought a home a few years back. Shortly after moving in he bought a small little puppy. One day Kevin’s little puppy broke away from his rope that seemed to be plenty at one time. Kevin couldn’t find him for hours. If I remember correctly, Kevin was out looking for the dog and remembered how much it had enjoyed playing in the lake across the street from the house. Kevin had taken him there a few days prior on a walk. As Kevin got closer to the lake his puppy was nowhere to be found. Finally reaching the water’s edge he looked out and could see his puppy in the water. Not swimming and playing as it had before, but floating lifelessly in the small current. The puppy didn’t know that the leash he had been wearing days prior was connected to Kevin and that each time he felt a tug it was Kevin keeping him from areas where the water was not safe. The puppy just wanted to not feel the tug and to be free.

Adam and Eve had a relationship with God. They walked through the garden with Him and spent time with Him. How many times did they pass that tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and how many times did they feel a tug from God saying, hold on there Adam, wait a second Eve...remember, we don’t go there, we don't do that. Then one day, they go out on their own, and the “plenty of rope” was torn from its anchor.

I’ve seen run away dogs in the city. They run around scared of their unfamiliar surroundings as they are frantically looking for their owners. With the looks on their faces and fear in their eyes you can almost hear them crying out, “MASTER! MASTER! WHERE ARE YOU? SAVE ME! I WANT TO GO HOME!” You and I have seen the desperation of their owners as they hang signs around the city stating “MISSING” and a picture of the lost dog below. I wonder if the lost pet loses hope in finding his master after being disconnected for so long.

As I have stated before, I am proud to be an American. I live in a country that people from all around the world still dream of traveling to and seek freedom from their current circumstances in life. But what these freedom seekers don’t realize is that the very same “land of the free” which they are chasing after is trying to cut the rope of freedom that was anchored down generations ago by our nation’s founding father’s. In God was their trust, and God was set as our nation’s anchor. Today, God is not trusted in the lives of many Americans. Webster’s “plenty of rope” definition may not come out and say that the rope has an anchor. However, to me it is implied by the word plenty. There is more then enough, yet it does have a limit. The men who built the foundations of America and those that signed the Declaration of Independence knew that freedom came with a cost and with limits. They understood that laws given by God would keep this country from repeating the torment of Great Britain. Today our country is trying to strip God away from our foundations and even our laws. It even seems that with each passing year our country is trying to cut God and our freedom of religion away from us. How long can our nation stand free without the rope that holds to an anchor? As Christians, we have a relationship with God and he is our anchor through life’s storms, holding us in place. That relationship that we have does have its limits and will only allow us to go so far. This freedom cutting isn’t just happing to our nation. Whether we realize it or not, the rope of freedom is being cut worldwide as even religion raises it’s sharp blade to the strained and highly tensioned rope. Every generation picks and chooses which strings that make the rope are important to keep or not. At times it seems that they are carelessly cutting away with no implication of what may come. Eventually we will come down to just one strand that is being pulled so tight that no one may even need to cut it because it will just snap and break under pressure destroying all that lay in its path. Just as Adam and Eve’s freedom came with limitations so does ours. As the children of God we have been called out to be separate from this world and to live a life that does not take part in the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life.

“As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: but as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.” -1 Peter 1:14-16

Sadly, it is true that many religious groups are cutting more strands of the freedom rope then that of the rope which weighs them down to the anchor of sin. When a person falls overboard wouldn’t they want a life preserver thrown to them that is tied to the ship, or at least in the hands of one who is on the ship? Are we looking to be a church, a nation, that would rather be a floating lifesaver who’s rope has been disconnect from its ship and those that seek us for salvation find that we too are disconnected? God came in the flesh and died on a cross to mend a disconnected relationship with his creation. In the shedding of his blood we have found an eternal freedom. But, we can lose out on this freedom if we cut ourselves from the holy life style which is today’s stipulation for freedom in God. As a free nation under God we can not conform to what we may think this world may expect of us. The same must be said for Christians. We cannot conform to the lifestyles that our nation may want and still remain as the children of God. We are separate because that is the amount of rope that our anchor allows. Anymore would be too much and we would have no need to be called out of sin because we would be able to walk right back into it without any tug or restraint from a rope and anchor. Once we realize that the rope is our freedom then maybe we can start to enjoy the area of safety which it provides.

I know not what course my nation may take, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Abortion

Legal Background

Roe v. Wade (1973): In this landmark case, Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe)claimed she had been raped and that Texas law was forcing her to continue her pregnancy, even though she had been impregnated against her will. The Court ruled that Texas law prohibiting abortion except to save the mothers life were unconstitutional. Such laws were claimed to violate the due process clause of the FourteenthAmendment of the Constitution, which protects a person's rights to privacy.

Doev. Bolton(1973): In a companion case decided on the same day as Roe v. Wade, the Court struck down a Georgia law that limited abortions to accredited hospitals, required the approval of the hospital abortion committee and confirmation by two other physicians, and limited access to abortion in Georgia to state residents. Again citing the woman's right to privacy, the Court declared the statue unconstitutional.

Planned Parenthood v. Danforth (1977): This case struck down limits on the freedom to obtain an abortion according to the standard set down in Roe v. Wade. At issue was a Missouri law that required that a woman's husband also consent to the abortion, and that the parents of a minor child consent to abortion. The Court ruled that the woman's right to abortion cannot be limited by the requirement that a spouse or parent of a minor child must grant prior consent.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989): This case marked the first significant limits to the right to abortion. The Court reversed decisions by the District Court and the Court of Appeals and upheld a Missouri law that prohibited the use of public funds or medical facilities for “nontherapeutic” abortions.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992): At issue in this case were the provisions of the law that required a 24-hour waiting period before the abortion, parental consent for a minor seeking an abortion, and notification of the woman's husband of her decision to obtain an abortion. The Court reasoned that abortion rights are consistent with the notion of the right to privacy that emerges out of the idea of liberty in the Constitution.

Biblical Background

The Bible clearly prohibits the taking of innocent life in the Fifth Commandment: “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13).In the account of the first birth, when Eve gave birth to her son Cain, person language is used to describe Cain (Gen. 4:1). Eve speaks of Cain with no sense of discontinuity between his conception, birth, and postnatal life.(Job3:3) This type of parallelism suggest that the child who was “born”and the child who was “conceived” are considered the same person. What was present at birth was considered equivalent to what was present at conception.(Jer.1:5) Describes God knowing the unborn in the same way he knows a child or an adult.The Greek term for “baby,” bre'phos, is applied to a child still in the womb in Luke 1:41-44 as well as to the newborn baby Jesus in Luke 2:16.

Arguments For/Against Abortion

A woman has the right to do with her own body whatever she chooses.

SupportingArguments

It is the fundamental principle of the pro-choice movement-the woman's right to choose.This is foundational to the woman's constitutional right to privacy and was appealed to by the Court in the Casey decision when they referred to the preservation of a woman's bodily integrity and to her personal autonomy to choose abortion.

CounterArguments

A person's right over his/her own body is not absolute. In most states prostitution is illegal, and nowhere is it legal to pour illegal drugs into one's body.The fetus is technically not part of the woman's body. It is agenetically distinct entity with its own genetic code, and early on in the pregnancy it has its own heart and circulatory system. If abortion becomes illegal, we will return to the dangerous days of the “back alley” abortion providers.

Supporting Arguments

Unlicensed physicians performed these abortions in “back-alley” clinics with varying degrees of safety. Desperate to be relieved of an unwanted pregnancy, woman would thus endanger themselves in the process of obtaining an abortion.

CounterArguments

The person advancing this argument would be arguing that society has the responsibility to make it safe to kill people who have the right to life. The only way that the safety of the mother can be a legitimate concernis if the fetus is not a person and if abortion is comparable to any other type of surgery in which a part of the woman's body is removed.

Forcing women, especially poor ones, to continue their pregnancies will create overwhelming financial hardship.

Supporting Arguments

This argument is based on the economic hardship that will likely result from women being without the option of abortion to control the size of their families. Without safe and legal abortion, these women will be condemned to a life of poverty and financial burden, which is also unfair to the children that they bring into this world.

Counter Arguments

This argument also begs the question by assuming that unborn poor are not persons. Otherwise, this argument could be used as a basis for exterminating all those who are financially burdensome to society. The reason society does not do this is that the financially burdensome are persons with the right to life, and their burden to society is irrelevant.

Society should not force women to bring unwanted children into the world.

Supporting Arguments

Abortion helps society prevent bringing unwanted pregnancies into the world. Thus prevents child abuse and child neglect.

Counter Arguments

This argument begs the question by assuming that the fetus is not a person, because if it is, then surely abortion is the worse imaginable form of child abuse. One cannot determine the value of a child based on the degree to which they are desired.

Society should not force women to bring severely handicapped children into the world.

Supporting Arguments

Pro-choice advocates consider it unfair and insensitive to force a woman to carry a pregnancy that she knows will result in a severely deformed child. A handicapped life is not worth living.

Counter Arguments

Abortions in the case of deformity are a relatively small percentage of the overall number of abortions annually. In general, difficult cases do not make the general rule, that is, they do not support the right of a woman to choose abortion on demand. There is no moral difference between the abortion of a handicapped fetus and executing handicapped children.

Society should not force women who are pregnant from rape or incest to continue their pregnancies.

Supporting Arguments

Since the woman had sex force on her against her will, it is argued that she should not be forced to continue a potential pregnancy.This not a case of carelessness, but rather a lack of consent to sex that made her pregnant. Thus society would be punishing the victim of a crime by making her a victim again.

Counter Arguments

The number of pregnancies that result from rape or incest is very small-roughly 1 in 100,000 cases. Yet how the pregnancy was conceived is irrelevant to the central question of personhood of the fetus. You cannot justify the homicide of another person just to relieve the mental distress of a trauma such as rape.

Restrict abortion laws discriminate against poor women.

Supporting Arguments

This argument is based on what happened prior to abortion being legalized in 1973. When women of means wanted an abortion, they simply traveled to countries where abortion was legal and paid for them. Obviously, poor women did not have this option. Thus, restrictive abortion laws have the practical effect of discrimination against poor women, who are often the ones who need abortion services the most due to their difficult economic circumstances.

Counter Arguments

This argument begs the question by assuming that an abortion is somehow a moral good that would be denied to poor women if restrictive laws were enacted. If the fetus is a person, then denying someone an abortion is irrelevant. Society has no obligation to provide equally to all the freedom to kill innocent persons.

The Personhood of the Fetus

The debate centers on the point in gestation at which the fetus possesses personhood. These are called “decisive moments.”

Viability

Is the point at which the fetus is able to live on its own outside the womb. One problem with viability as a determinant of person-hood is that it cannot be measured precisely. It varies from fetus to fetus and medical technology is continually pushing viability back to earlier stages of pregnancy.

Brain development

The appeal to this decisive moment is the parallel with the definition of death, which is the cessation of all brain activity. Since brain activity is what measures death, or the loss of personhood. The problem with the analogy to brain death is that the dead brain is in irreversible condition, unable to be revived. The brain of the developing fetus is only temporarily nonfunctional.

Sentience

The appeal to this point for the determination of personhood is that if the fetus cannot feel pain, then there is less of a problem with abortion, and it disarms many of the pro-life arguments that abortion is cruel to the fetus. This decisive moment confuses the experience of harm with the reality of harm. It does not follow that the fetus cannot be harmed simply because the fetus cannot feel pain or otherwise experience harm.

Quickening

Before the advent of sophisticated medical technology such as ultra sound, which can see the fetus from the early stages of pregnancy, quickening was considered the first indication of the presence of life within the mother's womb. Philosophically speaking, this decisive moment confuses epistemology (knowledge or awareness of the fetus) with ontology (the nature or essence of the fetus).

Appearance of humanness

The appeal of this is that the fetus begins to resemble a baby, it makes it at least emotionally more difficult to consider abortion. The appearance of the fetus has no inherent relationship to its essence.

Birth

A few hold that birth is the decisive moment at which the fetus acquires personhood. No essential difference exist between the fetus on the day before its birth and the day after its birth.

Implantation

At this point the embryo establishes its presence in the womb by the“signals” or the hormones it produces. It does not follow that personhood is established at implantation just because the embryo establishes its presence by the hormonal signals it produces. The essence of the fetus cannot be dependent by another's awareness of its existence, whether it is physical awareness, as in quickening, or chemical awareness in the production of specific hormones.

Conception

An adult human being is the end result of the continuous growth of the organism from conception (this premise has hardly any debate).From the moment of conception, it possesses all the capacities necessary to develop into a full adult.

This is a chapter outline done from "Moral Choices" (Rae, S. 2000)