The phrase "unalienable rights" is attributed to Thomas Jefferson.  But where did he and his compatriots get their notion about inalienable rights?  While Jefferson did not quote the Bible, his words reflect what is commonly referred to as a Judeo-Christian ethic.  That, in turn, has its basis in what was known in the past as natural law.

There is a great deal of confusion today as to what natural law is -- and also about our inalienable rights, especially about the right to life.  That confusion continues to fuel one of the major controversies that has divided the people of this nation for generations now.  The spark that ignited it all was the infamous Roe v. Wade decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973.

Natural law theory traces back to Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle.  It also figures prominently in the philosophies of St. Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and many others.  Of special interest to us is the reference to natural law Saint Paul made in his letter to the Romans.  Here again is what he wrote:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."  (Romans 1:18-20, NIV84)

Along with Barnabas, Paul said something very similar on his first missionary journey when speaking to the people of Lystra in Galatia:

"In the past, he let all nations go their own way.  Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy."  (Acts 14:16-17, NIV84)

Natural law refers to what human beings can know about God, and about good and evil, apart from the Bible.  It refers to what we know instinctively about God.  It informs us of the same thing the Declaration says about the "Creator" as well as our understanding of "unalienable rights."

Without question God has given the world clues apart from the Bible both to his existence and his expectations.  When we look at what God has made, by extension we know something about God, the Maker (Hebrews 11:3).  We know that this is God's world.  He wields all power and authority.  We are merely guests in his world, and that makes us answerable to him for the way we conduct ourselves.  We also know that as creatures of God we have certain inalienable rights.  One of those rights, as the Declaration says, is the right to life.

Which brings us to Life Sunday 2012.

The Supreme Court called the right to life into question in 1973 in its controversial Roe v. Wade decision.  That ruling cleverly shifted the point of controversy from a question of an unborn child's right to life to a question of a woman's right to choose.

Where did that idea come from?  Have you ever heard anyone claim that a woman's right to choose an abortion is an inalienable right based on natural law?  The fact of the matter is that the idea originated in the minds of public relations experts who used their ingenuity to find a way to break down public resistance to the idea of abortion. They knew that the public would never be receptive to abortion if it were treated as a right-to-life issue.  So they determined to confuse the issue by recasting it in terms dear to the heart of every patriotic American -- freedom and choice.

That shift of focus obscures the real issue -- the termination of a life.  It focuses instead on the popular notion that intelligent people ought to be free to make their own choices in personal matters.

The point at issue is no longer whether human life begins at conception -- that's irrelevant.  What matters is the proposition that human freedom begins with choice. If you take away a woman's choice, you take away her freedom.  That's un-American, or religious bigotry, or both.

Meanwhile, what happens to the inalienable right based on natural law?  It gets lost in the fog created by the proponents of freedom of choice.

Unfortunately the question of right-to-life does not stop with the abortion issue.  Once truth is obscured and suppressed on one issue, it becomes easier to suppress it on other related issues.  People who dispense with natural law become a law unto themselves.  In 1991 voters in the state of Washington were first asked to approve two right-to-die initiatives sponsored by the Hemlock Society.  The new law would have given physicians the right to terminate life under specified conditions.  The narrow margin of defeat at the polls left right-to-life proponents apprehensive about the future.

From our perspective it's unsettling that the initiatives even got on the ballot in the first place.  The constitutional guarantee of the right to life becomes a negotiable issue.  It all depends.  Instead of natural law deciding the issue, ballots decide it.  Is that where we are headed?  Recent history provides a disturbing answer to that question.  In 1994 Oregon voters approved a so-called "Death With Dignity" initiative.  Washington State soon followed suit.  In 2009, Montana's high court ruled that although assisted suicide remains technically illegal, a doctor, if prosecuted, can use a "defense of consent."  The problem is growing and spreading like wildfire.

In 1940, less than 7% of our citizens were elderly.  In 1980 it was 11%.  In 2000 it was 17% and rising.  What are we going to do when the young people who were not aborted can no longer meet the tax burden of supporting the elderly?  The table has been set by the abortion debate.  If it is legal to deprive the unborn of the right to life, how long will it be before we legalize the deprivation of life for the elderly?  Two decades ago, voters in Washington were offered the opportunity to ask: Why not?  If abortion is an option to resolve a thorny problem, why not death with dignity?

Isaiah addressed a word of warning to Israel 2,700 years ago.  It is as pertinent today as it was then:

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter" (Isaiah 5:20, NIV84).

As a nation are we repeating Israel's mistake today? Are we setting ourselves up for the day when "the wrath of God" is going to be "revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness"? (Romans 1:18, NIV84).

Paul's words paint a gloomy picture.  What we need to remember as we ponder these words is that the first chapter of Romans is followed by 15 more -- 15 chapters that offer a positive testimony to God's other revelation of himself in Christ Jesus.  Not only is God a God whose "invisible qualities" are plainly evident in his creation of the world, as the writer to the Hebrews says.  He is also a God who has made himself visible to us in the person of his Son, our Savior, "the Word made flesh."

In Christ the God who created us has also recreated us and reclaimed us to be his very own.  Not only has he given us a new status as saints of God, he has also given us a new mission in life.  The world is still willfully blind to the obvious; it is still "suppressing the truth."  But we have the privilege of "unsuppressing" it and making it known.  Life Sunday is a reminder to us that our work is not finished.  We have a big responsibility, but we also have a big God whose eternal power still stands behind us guaranteeing us victory in the end.

Reaffirm your resolve to not just talk about the sanctity of life, but to demonstrate it in your words and actions too, for Jesus' sake. Amen.