War and Abortion - A Call for Consistency
NOW is caught undermining
their own position
Recently, I came across a man protesting the U.S. war in Iraq
in a busy shopping area. Wanting to understand his position
better, I approached him and began to ask him about his views.
Unfortunately, he was more interested in shouting hyperbole than
discussing the situation rationally. He wanted to make a big
show of me so everyone would look, but he had no arguments, just
accusations. (I also noticed that he got pretty mad, which I
thought was ironic.)
Now, you don't have to be a scholar to understand how
inconsistent it is to become violent while protesting for peace.
But it seems more and more that people really don't think
through their positions on matters, especially those dealing
with the big questions of life. The recent debate over the war
on Iraq is a good example of this.
An Issue of Life and Death
Although I don't think it proper in this space to debate the
merits or flaws of the U.S. decision, I would like to look at
some of the rhetoric voiced by certain organizations and see how
truly coherent the Christian worldview is. No matter what side
of the debate you were on - pro or con - it was evident that all
understood we were dealing with life and death issues here. The
National Organization for Women (NOW) recognized that as well
when they wrote their open letter to President Bush on March 7
objecting to the war (to read the letter online, click
here). In that letter they wrote "Even more troubling
are the costs in human lives and suffering that war will cause.
Our women and men in the armed forces, though they understand
the risks of enlisting, should not be put in harm's way
unnecessarily."
NOW feels that U.S. soldiers' lives should be protected as
much as possible, even to the extent of leaving a mass murderer
in power. They state they understand the fact that soldiers are
voluntarily enlisting into the armed forces and the normal
expectation of enlistees should include the possibility of war.
Yet they also feel we should err on the side of caution, because
protecting life is of primary importance.
Not All Life and Death Issues are on the Battlefield
Now, there is another life and death issue where many of
these same choices come into play: abortion. How consistent is
NOW's position in this instance? Not very. Protecting life isn't
the primary concern for NOW in the abortion debate - a woman's
choice is. Erring on the side of caution is not an option, even
as medical science continues to allow babies to stay viable at
earlier and earlier gestations.
The NOW letter continues, "Civilians in combat zones do
not voluntarily take such risks... The killing and maiming of
innocent people as well as the destruction of Iraq's physical
and social infrastructure are inevitable in a massive
pre-emptive military strike." The argument here is that
some civilians (people who happen to live in Iraq but are not an
immediate threat to the United States) will be hurt by the
fighting and this is wrong, even to obtain a political objective
such as overthrowing a despot and torturer such as Saddam. The
political objectives are not worth the cost to life.
However, when looking at abortion, they don't feel the same
way. NOW is very clear that a woman should maintain the right to
eliminate the life inside of her no matter what the reason, and
they'll do what ever it takes to achieve this political
objective. Although the life inside a woman is an innocent, the
baby's well being is not an issue. It has merely gotten in the
way of the woman and her objectives in life, and because it
intrudes, it should be killed.
Life Versus Potential Life
Now, some may object at this point, saying that we're talking
about two different issues. After all, NOW doesn't consider a
pre-born baby a human life, but rather "potential
life". While it is true that NOW's rhetoric differentiates
the unborn from individuals who are already born, their reasons
for doing so are the point of my objection. As I've pointed out,
NOW says they believe that where life and death is involved, we
should err on the side of caution, yet they don't approach the
question of when life begins this way. They say they believe
political motivations should be of secondary importance to
risking lives, yet political concerns play a chief role in why
they won't consider any type of limitation on any abortion
procedures. Lastly, even though certain individuals (such as the
Iraqi citizenry) may endure long term suffering at the hands of
a ruthless regime, NOW says there must be more at stake before
we risk innocent lives in trying to oust that regime. How
unfortunate that NOW doesn't see the innocent lives of the
unborn are being sacrificed merely to avoid the inconvenience
they may cause in a person's life.
I hope you've enjoyed looking at this issue in a little
different light. Do you have anything you'd like to add? Write
and let me know at newsletters@comereason.org.
Until next month, God bless.
|
