We in the USA are frequently deluged with so called "pro life" and "right to choose" slogans and political position ads that proclaim one position or the other as the only correct and morally acceptable position.
What do these proclamations really mean? "Pro life" is defined to mean that any human abortion is morally wrong because such a practice destroys life. "Pro choice" means that one can chose to destroy a potential life or not, and morality is totally ignored.
Both positions are morally bankrupt because nether side is consistent and both slip into selective amnesia when applying their positions regarding abortion to the sacredness of life in general.
Why is it acceptable to espouse pro life beliefs and yet approve of war? How can one accept the killing of innocent children as "collateral damage" and hold firm to "pro life" beliefs? How can one be morally morally right regarding the sacredness of new born life while accepting the killing of innocent young children by bombs and bullets?
How can those who support the "pro choice" stance deplore war and the killing of innocent men, women, and children who are victims of war?
Are not both positions morally bankrupt?
If life is sacred, and I believe that it is, how can humans arbitrarily decide when life is or isn't sacred?
How can one say that a fetus must be allowed life, but when born can be neglected and allowed to suffer from disease and poverty and the ravages of war?
How can one destroy a potential life and decry the loss of life in war?
Either life is sacred or it is not. Either one's life is as sacred at eighteen years of age as it is at birth, or it is not sacred at all.
Politicizing the sacredness of life represents the epitome of hypocrisy. Both "Pro Choice" and "Pro Life" stances are equally destructive positions. The sacredness of life does not terminate at birth, nor does it when a stray bomb penetrates the walls of a bunker or innocent child's home.
We are the custodians of each other's lives and must adhere to the Human Way. All life must be considered sacred and we must govern our behavior accordingly. All arbitrary destruction of life, either by abortion , war, poverty, disease, or wanton disregard of others is morally wrong. We must adopt a unified stance that becomes the basis of all human endeavor, and codes of law and governance. These must be based upon the sacredness of each and every life from birth to natural death.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Life is Sacred
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
We are indeed deluged with a variety of slogans, and, if that's all they are, then they are easily dismissed, and deservedly so--especially if they give only lip service to something as foundational as life itself. But there is something else we are inundated with that is as bad or worse than sloganeering, and that is the often-subtle impulse to misrepresent the views and positions of those with whom we disagree, or just can't understand because of our own bias or narrow presuppositions.
This is called creating a "straw man". The "straw man" is then attacked as if it accurately represented the position we disagree with--which it doesn't. In this little commentary, for example, two opposing positions are defined (supposedly with the "only correct and morally acceptable" terms) and then rebutted and judged as "morally bankrupt".
It seems almost pointless to argue with such "reasoning". It often is pointless unless the "straw men" can be exposed as such, and often devotion to the straw man is so strong that no reasoning can be done--much like trying to settle an argument in two languages while ignoring the best efforts of a translator.
Suffice it to say, in any debate about life being "sacred", all will come to the table with certain biases, and likely with different definitions and understanding of the same words or terms. Findng agreed upon definitions is a process itself, and often a painful one---maybe that's one reason it's often neglected.
Making a case for the sacredness of life (and is that just human life?) would probably best be made without resorting to deconstructing the [imagined] beliefs of two sides of another debate.
I am willing to discuss why abortion is fundamentally wrong, especially as an all-too-commonly used means of preventing "unwanted, unplanned or inconvenient" pregnancies. An estimated 40+ million surgical and chemical abortions have ended 40+ million lives--not "potential" life, but real, flesh and blood life.
Is it possible to be rightly against the wanton and selfish killing of innocent unborn life, and (at the same time) see death during war as terribly tragic (and to be avoided) but fundamentally different? Are all wars the same? Is all killing the same? Like it or not, the answer to the first question is "yes", and "no" on the next two.
Life is sacred, and death is always the end of it, but the arguments made in this commentary contribute little to fostering a meaningful conversation on the subject, let alone finding any common ground on which a "human way" can walk or grow...
You say, "We must adopt a unified stance that becomes the basis of all human endeavor, and codes of law and governance..." Hopefully your next attempt at articulating and encouraging this hoped for "unity" will offer something of just that. Frankly, I don't think you have such a stance to offer. It is said that one can't give what one doesn't possess....unless, that is, one works for some government agency, but that is subject for another [perhaps] pointless discussion.
Thanks Dave for your comments. They are always well articulated. I believe that taking a potential life by abortion is fundamentally no different than the death of a pregnant woman caused by collateral war killing of innocent civilians. This is not a straw man argument but is moral consistency. Both actions involve choice wherein the fetus is the totally innocent victim of the decision of another controlling individual.In my judgment all war that results in the killing of innocent people or unborn fetuses is morally equivalent to the wanton taking of potential life by abortion.The arbitrary definition of moral or immoral actions that results in the deaths of innocent lives is the downfall of so called civilized societies, ours included.
Great ideas Phil.
But I believe that the Pro Life vs. Choice debate is also about determining what life "is"... or better put: when it begins. Certainly this is complicated with unnecessary fervor!
But,I prefer valuing life as I value my own life and the lives of my family and loved friends. And if I help others in need I am also raising my own quality of life.
If those in power would only follow this simple philosophy we could avoid the serious consequences we're bound to face.
There is a clear and fundamental difference between the death of a child by abortion and that of "innocents" in a war action. This seems obvious, but then so does the real existance of the so-called "potential life" in the womb.
The child killed by abortion is the victim of an intentional act of deadly violence against only he or she. This modern-day holocaust is not the accidental consequence of tens of millions being in the "wrong place...." Oh, well it's only done out of some "need". Right?!
It us just as clear that some war actions are not only fundamentally wrong, they are then fought wrongly. However, some "just" war actions are wrongly fought, and even when "rightly" fought are obviously deadly for combatants and the "innocent". This isn't arbitrary in any way.
In modern warefare especially, the "rules of engagement" dictate a course of measured force against those identified as the "enemy", and often lethal force is not used if "innocents" are likely victims in such combat. How is the premeditated abortion death of innocent unborn children in any way like that of "innocent" victims" of war (except, perhaps, those killed by the indifferent actions of malicious warlords or war criminals)?
Thank you for your comments Dave and Ben.Certainly abortion is a conscious act when done out of convenience. Other occasions my occur because of medical necessity or accidental injury or death, or spontaneously. Pregnant mothers are also killed during wars. The choice to take a life or potential life is a CHOICE. Abortion is a CHOICE made by one or a few people. War is a CHOICE made my governmental leaders and carried out by individuals who choose to do the killing. In both cases innocent life or potential life is taken. What is the real difference between taking a potential life by abortion or war?
Post a Comment