The Politics of life

Perhaps the flashpoint that started the culture war was the issue of abortion. This issue pre-dated the famous Roe v. Wade decision by several years. By the time of Roe many states already had various types of legalized abortion on demand. Roe simply made it a constitutional issue. Any belief that overturning Roe would immediately make abortion illegal nationally is foolish thinking. It will simply return the country to where it was before Roe with a patchwork quilt of state laws which meant women seeking abortion simply crossed state lines to obtain them or, if poor, resorted to things like taking poisons or, as a friend of my mother's did, jumping off a kitchen counter on her stomach to force a miscarriage.

This was the beginning of the "pro-life" movement. The term "Pro-life" was a master stroke of public relations at the time. At that time there were many groups that were "anti" things such as "anti-war" and "anti-racism." Here was a group that was technically anti-abortion, but they turned it into a positive. They were saying, "We aren't against abortion, we are in favor of life, and abortion destroys life." At the time is was a subtle and effective way to set them apart from the "protesters" of the time which were identified with liberal causes.

Thus the politics of life was formed. One group claimed to be pro-life saying that abortion was murder because it took an innocent life. On the other hand the pro-choice crowd shifted the debate away from when life begins to a matter of freedom of choice. So, we had the battle of values. Life vs. Freedom. In American culture you can't imagine two more powerful archetypes.

The problem was that both sides, once again, were essentially hypocritical. The political religious right claims to be "pro-life" but apparently that stance only extends to the unborn. The PRR has not yet seen a war it didn't like, supports the death penalty, fights environmental regulations which can save lives, and some radical elements support assassination as a tool of foriegn policy.

Even on the abortion issue, the PRR doesn't even pay much attention to church history. Throughout the middle ages and rennaissance clerics argued about when life began with ideas ranging from conception to the sensation of movement in the mother's womb to one group that said it didn't begin until the baby took the first breath. This latter position was rooted in Genesis 2:7 where Adam becomes a living soul when God breathes the breath of life into him.

But what about all the other life issues. I'm not claiming that it is always wrong to go to war. Certainly, when the governmental integrity of a country is at stake, when it has been attacked with the intent of invasion and conquest as with Pearl Harbour, then the country has little choice but to go to war. However, initiating a conflict or simple military adventurism is hardly proper. The early church actually debated if serving in the military was ever justified. Many Christians died rather than be conscripted into the Roman army. I think that is a bit extreme, but it certainly shows that the church hasn't always been pro-war.

The death penalty is interesting because religious people from both sides of the fence call scripture to the foreground to defend or oppose the practice. Certainly, the Old Testament practices the death penalty, but it also requires blood sacrifices of animals and makes the eating of shell fish an abomination. The Law of the Old Testament we are told is fulfilled in Christ. And when Christ faced judging a death penalty case (the woman taken in adultery) he opted for mercy rather than judgement. Many will say, "But Jesus said, "An eye for an eye."" Unfortunately, they don't quote the entire verse:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
(Mat 5:38-39)

This is hardly an endorsement of retribution. At the very least, it means that there are justifiable differences on this life issue.

I could go on about the hypocrisy of the PRR's "pro-life" proclamations, but now I have to turn to the problems on the left.

With abortion, the pro-choice group sidestep an important issue: Is a fetus a living soul? Certainly, there is the legal fiction of a person vs. a non-person. But the law recognizes certain corporations as "persons" for the sake of discussion. I'm not talking law now, I'm talking philosophy.

Can even the most strident pro-choice advocate deny that when a woman is feeling movement in her womb, that the "fetus" is not a person? Can they deny the anguish that a woman feels when a wanted pregnancy miscarries? Do they deny the heroic work of the doctors who work with premature children to keep them alive?

There is an inconsistency here that says simply that one life is worth more than another. Whatever the questions about whether a fertilized egg or an embryo consisting of only a few cells constitutes life or life potential, when we get to the point where there is a possibly viable fetus that has movement and can respond to outside stimuli, can we deny this PERSON some sort of protection from it's own mother.

The knee-jerk response against any types of limitation on abortion by the left needs to be examined as critically as the hypocricy of the right.

Likewise, the various ways we have developed to justify cold blooded murder needs to be examined. Liberals have championed such defenses as the "twinkie" defense blaming the sugars in junk food for an uncontrollable murderous rage, battered spouse syndrome in which the wife is allowed to kill her husband as he sleeps instead of leaving him, blaming parenting, TV, video games and rap music instead of placing the responsiblity on the murderer belies any type of suggestion of honoring life on either side of the issue.

Life is indeed precious. I find it hard to justify abortion, while having sympathy with the desperation of the expectant mother. But I can't see that making abortion illegal is any solution. Providing more alternatives, setting a waiting period, providing full disclosure of objectively conducted studies of post-abortion trauma and medical complications makes sense as does requiring parental notification and approval. It seems ridiculous that a school nurse can't give a minor an aspirin without parental permission, but that same girl could have an abortion without the parents even being notified.

So, I must say I am Pro-Life, but I consider that to be universally pro-life. I'm morally opposed to most abortions, but also to the death penalty, wars of opportunity, assassination as foreign policy, and toxins in the atmosphere which kill people. I'm for the pre-born and the post-born being protected. Again putting me at odds with both the right and the left.