by One of the American left’s great lies is that they value human life. This claim is manifested primarily in their opposition to the practice of executing violent criminals and the prosecuting of wars against evil nations and their rulers. There are reasons for thinking people to take these positions; however, for a liberal American to then support unfettered access to abortion, a mandatory position in liberal circles, is nonsensical.
Abortion is probably the greatest evil of all time. Tens of million American babies have been sacrificed on the alter of easy abortion and with them a portion of the soul of this country. The left, abortion’s champions, deny this obvious truth.
In logical terms it’s unthinkable for a supporter of partial birth abortions to oppose the war in Iraq on humanitarian terms given the vast disparity in the number of lives lost to each cause. Yet they do and demonstrate their lack of critical thinking.
At Comments From Left Field, Kathy proudly flouts the absence of this trait in her latest post, an attempt to cut Sarah Palin down for her moral beliefs, specifically her rejection of abortion.
For Palin, it’s not human life that’s precious — it’s innocent human life. And “innocent,” of course, is defined in this context as “not born yet,” or, stretched to the definition’s limits, just born.
This is what makes it possible for her, and others like her, to blather about the “right to life of the unborn” while ignoring or, worse, denying, the right that every human being on this planet has to their own life. Just consider, for one moment, how extraordinary it is that someone who calls herself “pro-life” could utter a sentence like the above: “In times like these, with wars and a financial crisis, it’s easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life.” I mean, it almost robs me of the power of speech (not quite, though). Could it be any clearer that Sarah Palin thinks of “the right to life” as a subject separate from war, unrelated to it?
Actually, yes, it could be quite a bit clearer. It’s impossible that Sarah Palin – or George W. Bush, for that matter – considers war to be without consequence. But the numbers, Kathy! Have you considered them at all?
There is also the question of innocence. To my way of thinking there were many innocent lives lost in Iraq. That needs to be stated up front to dispel the obvious anti-war retort. But it’s ridiculous to put those deaths at Sarah Palin’s feet. Neither are they the responsibility of President Bush, though it’s certainly true that his misjudgment provided the killers in Iraq the excuse and opportunity to implement their murderous plans. Most of the dead in Iraq belong to the Muslim terrorists who choose to execute them to further their vile agenda of civil war in that country.
Returning to the subject of abortion, is there any doubt that the most innocent lives among us belong to the youngest? No. By definition the termination of such a life is the most abhorrent.
This logic too the left often seeks to evade by attempting to place the beginning of life at the first breath of air, an transparent falsehood, as demonstrated by the survival of premature babes the world over.
The most honest among them will admit that abortion is the cold-blooded ending of a human life, most often done for the convenience of the mother. But this position, while completely truthful, is not one that can hope to garner support with the populace at large, hence the subterfuge.
Kathy calls Sarah Palin’s support for the war in Iraq truly deplorable given her call for the right to life. But she, like so many of the liberal left, leaves the truth and consequences of her own beliefs unexamined, thereby missing the true evil that such relativistic values allow to come into the world.
While I recognize your point, I can’t say that I feel you’ve adequately defended your premise. Your argument here seems to me to boil down to “well she’s doing the same thing, but worse!” Two wrongs do not make a right.
If you are going to be pro-life, be pro-life. Be against abortion – I think that’s important. Be against the war – it is impossible at this stage to deny that we invaded Iraq for reasons that are hazy at best. Be against the death penalty – if thou shalt not kill, then do not embrace killing.
If you’re going to be pro-life – and I am – then be consistent. I think that’s only fair.
And before you jump on me for being a partisan, I’ve levelled the same charge at Kathy over at CFLF in the post you referenced.
Uno, thanks for your thoughtful comment. You’re right – I didn’t make the “abortion does not equate to death penalty” argument as clearly here as I’ve made it elsewhere. See this post for what might be a better discussion.
Excerpt:
“a baby killed in an abortion is terminated by the parents’ disregard for the value of his or her life. The baby has no voice, no choice, and no ability whatever to act in self-preservation. Abortion is the direct, brute-force ending of a human life in its most vulnerable, most innocent state. Viler acts can be committed; however, none are more absolute in terms of the disparity of power between killer and victim.”
…
“liberals who oppose the death penalty refuse to accept the logical conclusion that murderers and child rapists choose and accept their ultimate punishment by committing their heinous crimes with full knowledge of the consequences.”
Murders make their choices and have to accept the result. There’s no equivalency in abortion.
The abortion/war argument is more legitimate, I think, but ultimately not completely compelling. If Saddam Hussein killed 10,000 people a year, he’d have done for 70,000 Iraqis by now and the country would be no closer to freedom. There may yet prove to be a net-positive result to the Iraq war, although I’m not convinced of that.
Thanks for the considered response, Marc. I can agree that there is a compelling difference between enacting a penalty of death on one who has himself killed, as compared to destroying an unborn child; it would be foolish of me to claim otherwise. While I still feel it is unethical for society to kill a human being, I can understand the viewpoint.
As you said, the war issue is a lot murkier. If Saddam Hussein was indeed killing 10,000 people a year, it should be remembered that he gained power in part because of our assistance – and the deaths resulting from his ouster were also due to our own interference.
I suppose one could extend the pro-life argument in such a way that it compelled one to intervene on the side of life in every situation, in which case one could rapidly become wrapped up in “just wars” and “crusades for life” and so on, so there does have to be a line drawn somewhere. Finding that line has consumed much smarter people than I, but I’m always interested in getting people’s views on it. I appreciate your contribution! I’ll be adding this blog to my taskbar so I can keep up with you. You now officially have bipartisan support. 😆
“You now officially have bipartisan support.” Awesome!