What It Means to Be Pro-Life (Part 1)
Jan 30, 2012 at 10:17 AM
Many Americans with some political consciousness tend to group themselves in one or two political categories: the left and the right, the former are usually associated with the Democrat Party and the latter with the Republican Party. Whenever people assign themselves to one of these two positions, they usually subscribe to the majority of that position’s pre-set policies and beliefs.
Both the left and the right have their own views on the sanctity of life, yet their contradictory views -- the left being against war and the death penalty but all for the choice of abortion and the right being against abortion but for the death penalty and war -- become a paradox. Wherever they stand on the issue of life, both the left and the right are in full favor of death to some extent, and any stance they take on preserving life -- whether in the fetal stage or in the electric chair -- is based on fallacious logic and dishonest euphemisms. Both sides are willing to kill in order to bring about their ideal conditions in society.
Part I: How the Left Justifies Killing
Leftists love to attack war but most of them are hypocrites for doing so, since they also often favor war but simply for different reasons than the right. Socialists favor labor violence and outright civil wars which they refer to as “wars of liberation.” If they subscribe to Lenin’s teachings, violence and outright terror in the name of proletarian revolution are justified (see The Black Book of Communism, Chapter 4: The Red Terror). More moderate leftists, from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama, campaign on peace but instead lead the country into wars for various political and economic purposes. With Wilson it was the First World War and with Obama it was continuation of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well as intervention in the Libyan Civil War as well as those in Somalia, South Sudan, and Central Africa. Both social democrats enjoyed wide support from their allegedly pacific Democrat Party.
Leftists also tend to write off abortion as a matter of civil rights for women. Let us beg to differ! They scream and cry over American artillery falling short and killing a child in Ramadi, and they protest the deaths of civilian children in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli Defense Force, yet every year millions of unborn yet living fetuses are aborted -- human lives terminated, simply because taking responsibility for a new human that was created by the parent’s actions would be inconvenient or not economically advantageous. Many would simply argue that it’s a woman’s choice what she does with her own body. That’s true… to a point.
Both men and women are the masters of their body but their absolute corporal rule does not apply to another human being’s body. Men and woman have the liberty to do what they will with their bodies -- whether to partake in or abstain from sex, and whether they will or won’t use contraception, etc. -- but terminating the life of a human being is a violation of human rights, regardless of whether the human being is within or without the womb. With the exception of a truly life-threatening pregnancy, adults must take responsibility for their actions, even to the point of radically changing their lifestyles in order to care for a new human life they’ve created.
When leftists kill unborn babies because taking care of them when they’re born would be too difficult or inconvenient, they have lost any moral standing whatsoever when they protest war or the death penalty, all three of which are exercises in one party choosing whether another lives or dies. Today’s America is a society living with the contradiction that abortion is not baby killing, yet murder of a pregnant woman is double homicide. Does this double standard bother no one?!
Continued tomorrow in Part II: How the Right Justifies Killing