That is why I fought against abortion and that is why if I were

In the long and often tumultuous history of human societies, there have been countless debates over the sanctity of life and the structure of marriage. The words of Jesse Helms—"That is why I fought against abortion and that is why if I were still in the Senate I would be doing everything I could to defend the sanctity of marriage"—reflect the deep convictions of a man who believed in the preservation of what he saw as the sacred, the moral, and the traditional. Helms' declaration was not just a statement of policy; it was a deeply personal commitment to uphold what he viewed as the foundational values of society.

At the heart of Helms' words is a belief in the sanctity of marriage, a bond he considered to be ordained by divine law, designed to be a union between a man and a woman for the purposes of love, procreation, and societal stability. In his view, the erosion of this sacred institution through divorce, non-traditional relationships, or changes in legal recognition was a threat to the very fabric of society. Similarly, his opposition to abortion reflected his belief in the sacredness of life, arguing that life begins at conception and should be protected at all costs. In Helms’ worldview, both marriage and life were gifts to be preserved, not tampered with or redrawn by modern society's shifting norms.

This sentiment of protecting the sacred aspects of human existence is not unique to Helms, but rather is part of a long line of thought that stretches back to the ancient philosophers and thinkers. The Greek philosopher Socrates argued that the health of society was tied to the integrity of the family and the sanctity of relationships. His teachings on virtue and ethics focused on the importance of self-control and moral commitment, particularly within the context of marriage. To him, the unity between a man and a woman was not merely a social contract, but a moral obligation that served to uphold the harmony and balance of the larger community. Socrates saw the protection of such relationships as essential to the well-being of individuals and the stability of society.

Moreover, Helms' stance on marriage and abortion is reminiscent of medieval and early modern religious thought, where the sanctity of life was often viewed through a divine lens. In the Christian tradition, the sacredness of marriage was established as a sacrament, a bond not only between two individuals but between humans and the divine. The opposition to abortion rooted in these traditions carried the belief that to end a pregnancy was to interrupt God’s will, thereby infringing upon the sacred gift of life. Helms' commitment to these values was, in his eyes, a defense of these sacred and immutable truths, even as society around him was beginning to question and challenge those very same principles.

However, it is also crucial to recognize that Helms' convictions on these issues were part of a broader cultural and political struggle—a struggle that has shaped much of the conservative movement in modern times. His opposition to abortion and his defense of traditional marriage were emblematic of a deeper desire to protect what he saw as time-honored values in the face of social changes that many, particularly those on the right, feared would undermine the moral order of society. In his mind, to fight for these causes was not merely about politics, but about preserving the integrity of society, ensuring that future generations would inherit the same values and beliefs that had guided previous ones.

Yet, while Helms’ views were deeply rooted in tradition, we must also understand that societies evolve, and with evolution comes the re-examination of old truths. The debate over marriage and abortion is not a battle of right versus wrong, but a conversation about how best to understand the complexities of life and human relationships. The lesson here is not simply about defending one position but understanding the dynamic nature of society and the challenges that arise when deeply held beliefs meet the changing realities of human existence.

The challenge, then, lies not in entrenching ourselves in one position, but in listening, learning, and engaging with the ideas and convictions of others. Whether you agree with Helms’ stance on marriage and abortion or not, the real wisdom lies in recognizing the sacredness of human convictions and the need for dialogue. Society is not static, and as such, the future requires a balance between preserving our values and adapting to the evolving needs of the world. In your own life, take this to heart: fight for the values you hold dear, but always be willing to listen to others and to engage in the conversation that is necessary for the betterment of all. Truth can be found not only in defense but in growth, and it is only through this that we can truly create a society that honors the sanctity of life in all its forms.