Author's look at the basic contradictions that lie within the two most commonly held viewpoits on Abortion and War. by Gene DeNardo
(liberal)
Monday, November 10, 2008
When discussing Abortion and War, I believe we can use the same basic parameters. Both need to be framed with the legitimacy and/or the morality of taking human life. Is it uncivil and therefore unlawful to take human life and if it is immoral also, how does this tie into the civil aspect?
If taking life is not immoral or an act against Society, then both Abortion and War can be better defined and structured using other guidelines. We could use economic reasoning or health issues or population control, anything really other than the criminal or immoral nature of the acts. I believe it's safe to use the basic assumption that most people believe taking life is a fundamental wrong if we wish to live in a civil society. And, we can take a secondary position that this would be true whether the Society was based on maximum individual freedom or a broader State defined system of shared freedom.
That said, if we remove any contingencies or conditions from the argument, we can agree that both Abortion and War take human life and using our guidelines, would be considered an act or crime against individuals and Society. Conditions and contingencies, at what point the fetus becomes life and whether War is justified, are also important and need to be analyzed.
If we look into current positions on this, we generally find two camps. Generalizing somewhat, the first camp consisting mostly of those who consider themselves Conservatives, adamantly oppose abortion in virtually any situation. A choice has been made, the person is responsible and the pregnancy should be carried out to fruition. In the case of rape or incest the victim is not responsible, but should proceed with the birth and if desired, put the baby up for adoption. Human life is present in the embryo, even if it is not possible for the fetus to live outside the womb; an "essence" of life exists, thus abortion is considered murder at any stage.
On the other hand, War is not necessarily murder. War is part of the fight against evil. The enemy is evil and God is on our side, although this particular belief may not be shared by all. The enemy must be defeated and when victory has been accomplished, the world will be a better place, and more freedom will be attained for those who are still alive. Whether the death of an enemy combatant is actually considered the death of a "soul" or "essence", is up for debate. During the heyday of Colonialism, when the Pope was confronted with this dilemma, he declared the natives of the Americas to be without "soul", therefore it was permissible and without "sin" for the Conquistadores to commit atrocities on them. The Indians were classified as "savages" or "animals", therefore removing the Europeans from any moral or legal constraints to their actions.
The other world view, shared primarily by Liberals, does not see abortion as the taking of life. The fetus cannot exist outside of the womb and therefore is the "possibility" of life, but not life itself. Abortion is an essential part of a woman's freedom, although late term abortion is considered ill advised and considered by many to be wrong. On the other hand, War is definitely the taking of life and is only allowable under extreme circumstance. Defensive military response to direct attack is considered justified and often evidence of obvious genocide is reason enough for a foreign operation.
Abortion and War are first and foremost moral issues. A person's beliefs on the subject cannot be hindered in a free society unless actions based on these beliefs restrict the freedom, or cause injury to another citizen. It would follow that a forced induction of a citizen into the Armed Services, who is opposed to war in general or a specific war, would be a restriction of freedom. Wouldn't it follow that any forced contribution to this War effort, would be a restriction of freedom? Taxpayers should be allowed to divert their payments away from war production and while paying the same amount of tax, towards another area of government expenditures.
If the argument is that we live in a Democracy and the will of the majority should be imposed on the minority, then we should have the power within that democracy to vote on all War actions and expenditures, whether peace time or war time. Anything else is a restriction of our freedoms. There is no inherent logic in the argument that loss of present freedoms are necessary to deter the loss of future freedoms. We must make that choice today and suffer the consequences or enjoy the benefits of our own choice. Leaders do not go into battle, ordinary citizens do, and ordinary citizens must be allowed the free will to determine whether an action so drastic and so obviously an insult to a peaceful and civil society is justified. Inherent in this freedom would be the availability of the truth, the actual preexisting conditions surrounding the war, rather than the "agency intelligence" behind the scenes. An intelligent choice is built on truth, truth is not built on "agency intelligence".
The Abortion issue is a bit more complex. If we look at this issue only through the moral perspective, the results are simplified somewhat. We are a nation built on the separation of Church and State. What is decided in the pews, whether individually or as a group, is only the business of those involved. They may act on this divisive issue with their own beliefs as long as is not restrictive of the freedoms or causes harm to those on the other side of those church doors, or as has been interpreted in the courts recently, to themselves. So, all religious practicioners have freedom of individual choice on the morality of abortion.
But as defined in our Constitution, our Nation needs to take a stand based not on a belief system or faith, but on the laws and rules governing the protection of human life from injury or death. At what point is the fetus or fertilized egg, a child? And we need to realize that the result of our shared decision will have a great impact on the lives of women who have been victimized by two of the most degrading and despicable crimes, rape and incest. If we are not certain, women can not be victimized yet again, this time by Society.
It is probably obvious by now I am more certain of how I feel about War. A nation that uses War as a handy tool of foreign policy or as an economic stimulus plan, is not a nation that values life. I don't claim to have a definitve answer on the Abortion issue. What confounds me most is the two opposing viewpoints that were explored above. Abortion is Bad/War is OK on the right side and Abortion is OK/War is Bad on the left. The two positions appear to be just as contradictory to themselves as they are antagonistic to each other. Credibility always accompanies sensibility, and it appears both sides are lacking on these issues.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Gene DeNardo only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Gene DeNardo is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Thankyou for this article. It saddens me to read it - not because of M. DeNardo, but the subjects addressed and how they are addressed and although it is not a happy subject it raises a multitude of questions. On the subject of war I take the quotation:
 "We are a nation built on the separation of Church and State. "
 My reaction to this is, "You can't have it all then". Why do so many people when going to war, (sent via a governmental decision), say that God is on their side? Why did Sarah Palin say that it was God's will to go into Iraq? If there really is to be a separation between the church and the state, then logically God shouldn't even be quoted. The parallels between a so-called democratic order and Islamist extremism become too close for comfort to my mind, (both using the will of God or Allah to take certain actions).
 In the case of war, when talking about God and the fight against evil, if we were all really good Christians we wouldn't be taking up arms we would be taking up our cross and following Jesus. I know it's idealist but if everyone were genuinely devout we'd have no problem. (I use Christianity as an example but am conscious that ALL religions are capable of the equivalent peaceful act).
Then again look at those who don't believe in God. The moral issue of killing is no less important and if we were to play creation against evolution here, well, I would tend to say that we are learning absolutely nothing and therefore stunting the evolutionary process. One could say that while evil exists we must fight it and in the case of a country being invaded I believe that that country must protect itself. If France were today invaded by another country, we would have to fight back. If WE invaded a country however, I would expect the civilians to fight us - it is only natural. It cannot work only one way.
What am I trying to say here? I believe that if we are invaded/attaked by another nation or terrorists, we must defend ourselves. I do not believe however that we should go seeking people out and hunting them down on their own territory - in this situation we only prove that we are no better.
Â
With abortion there are so many things that M. DeNardo talked about. Speaking on life-terms, the moment a baby is conceived, it lives. It may not yet be considered an infant, fully-formed, able to live outside the body, but it is a living being, (designed to live inside the womb to keep it alive - that's the way it is and so therefore it is alive, take it or leave it!)
Just an aside. It is obvious that I would personally never abort, but appreciate that it isn't the same for everyone.
For the case of rape and incest, this is a tricky one. First no one can deny that rape and incest are amongst some of the most inadmissible acts, of the most heinous and brutal terror. It is something that a woman, (or indeed a man) must live with for the rest of their lives and brings into play many different emotions and psychological problems which develop with that person. How, therefore, can that person live with a child, which is a permanant living memory of this terrible experience? It isn't the fault of the child, and basing the pregnancy on any normal pregnancy, (in the physical sense), the child has every right to exist. Exist with the mother? That depends on the mother and how strong she is. What to tell the child? Certainly not tell the child that the father had commited a terrible crime on the mother. Are there no good lies? Would one have to tell the child that their father was dead to protect them? And what if the rapist recognised his crime? What if the rape was between two people who know each other but ended up in a so-called date-rape situation; that they were too young to recognise their acts; that they ask to be pardonned? In rape and incest, the nuances are so many it would be impossible to lump them all together. At the end of the day all one can say is that punishing the child is not the answer. All you can do is protect the child from becoming a second victim.
Again I have spoken from a pro-life point of view and it is only one point of view and certainly not a lecture to others. The subject is so vast and I congratulate M. Denardo for approaching these subjects in this way.
excellent comment! I wasn't taking sides with the article, just trying to point out the basic contradictions in the two prevailing avenues of "American" thought on the issues and how they didn't seem to be well thought out. your comments show that there are people thinking these tough questions through.
IÂ thought the article was good and understand that no sides were being taken. The importance is to contribute your opinion especially from personal experience but I think you managed also to try and see from 'outside' which isn't always easy to do.
I have often thought about writing an article much like it.
I personally believe that war is always wrong except for the self defense of ones own country and on ones own soil.
In my opinion ALL life is sacred and that includes plants and animals. However all living things on earth live off of other living things. No way around it. So killing is not the problem.
But in regards to abortion if one is to say that life begins at conseption and laws need to be inacted to prevent abortion because it's murder, accidental miscarages would have to be considerred manslaughter.. Can't have one without the other.
I think that if adoption is a better answer, than all anti-abortioists should sign up for adoption before trying to force their beliefs on other people."If you don't want it I will take it". But to force somebody to have and raise children in a non--loving enviroment or by people that do not want children at all is immoral too.There is enough unloved and unwanted children in the world already.
I know people that are trying to adopt an it is not easy. Make it easier to adopt and prevenitive surgery more affordable so that abortion is not the best answer to people that don't want to or can't afford to be parents.
I do not think that late term abortion should be legal though and all abortions should be done as soon after conception as possible.
I underlined in my opinion because these are just my opnions. Everybody has a right to their own.Â
You know I don't know if it exists in the states, but the French-Swiss (Roussel Laboratories), developed a pill which you take in the first I believe 8 weeks from conception to abort naturally. Caused a lot of consternation at the time, but you could see that it was less life-threatening than going to the hospital and doing it the old-fashioned way, and as you say, sooner rather than later - it's also less dangerous for the mother.
On your idea on anti-abortionists again the fine line that exists in such a passionate subject is a little like religious belief. I admitted that I am against abortion, but that means simply I personally wouldn't do it. However, I don't see myself being an 'activist' on the subject - it's too delicate a subject to my mind and as I mentioned before one can't force these ideas onto another individual. The access to information is more important and the consequences for each individual. I have known people who aborted and regretted the decision years afterwards causing depression, simply because they were not properly informed or did not give themselves the allotted time to reflect. On the other hand I know couples who have had a second child to save their marriage and the marriage fell apart anyway, leaving the children to suffer enormously. We are sometimes very irresponsible and selfish with our decisions to have children.
For the unwanted unloved child I believe very strongly that adoption needs to be improved - it is also very difficult near-impossible in France. I have two colleagues who adopted and spent years wasting time waiting for France to allow adoption from their own country. Eventually my colleagues had to go abroad - one couple to Cambodia and another to Central Africa. They are all very happy and of course wouldn't change anything, but what about the other children here who are waiting and waiting. These parents get questionned as to their capacity to be good parents before allowing their file to be accepted. It's ironic because natural parents do not go through this procedure! You decide to have children and it's anyone's guess if you will be a good mother or father, or not.Â
Well, I've never contributed so much to a subject in my life, but I think it's testimony to its importance in our lives.
The Morning After pill is an exellent idea, but is still an abortion in the eyes of many that believe like Ron Paul that life begins at conseption.
The pills are illegal in many places also because of that belief.
There is one more argument against full-term that doesn't seem to get addressed but happens quite often in the world today and that is for mothers that are addicted to drugs and become pregnant. What is your take on that?
 As I said I could never personally abort. The morning after pill is taken "in case", so there isn't even time to find out whether one was pregnant or not because for this pill to work you have to take it literally the next day and no one can know if they are pregnant the day after sexual relations. However, for the RU 486 pill this isn't the same thing. The person can only take it if they are pregnant and want to abort within the first few weeks. My mother worked for Roussel Laboratories at the time it was being developed in '86/'87 before being available in France and it caused a lot of controversy even within the laboratory because on the one hand they were developing something quite revolutionary and on the other hand it was considered by many as a very dangerous development.
 As for it being banned, I think it is banned in Australia but not New Zealand and the majority of African countries do not accept it.
 Drug addiction and pregnancy is a big issue. Already smoking is harmful to the foetus as well as regular alcohol intake. Drugs? I think that if one were planning to have a baby it'd be better to get clean, but I'm not living in an ideal world. The amazing thing is how healthy these babies turn out after birth, but will the mother be capable of taking care of the child? Will the existence of a baby turn her life around? (I think that example is rare - I don't wish to be cynical!) Each case is individual; if the woman is determined to change her life maybe it's the revelation that she needs and if her family are there to support her, who knows. I try to look on the positive side. But I think your question is very important. At the end of the day, the child has a right to their life, but that it at least be a life of good quality. You make me think of the film "Trainspotting", which gave me nightmares with this poor baby dying of neglet because the mother was a heroin addict, (the whole lot were). After seeing something like that, seeing it in real life is inconceivable for me.
Ooh la la! How we want to protect our children and it's normal - primordial. But I now have a question; shouldn't we try to protect our adults a little more too? Start a little further down the line before it becomes too late? Better health service , more communication and personal care, better education concerning our responsibilities with health and the way we treat our bodies? Do we have too much control at our fingertips but the lack of common sense to use this control intelligently? I ask these questions because although I was raised in England I live in France and I can say there are marked differences in attitude vis-Ã -vis 'life' and 'freedom'. Here in general corporeal freedom is essential, especially amongst the young and can be seen as very selfish at times. If you get pregnant and don't want the baby, you abort. Your body belongs to you and no one else (even the poor baby inhabiting it). In England I remember that there were many teenage pregnancies, but the large majority that I knew of personally were realised with the aid of the extended family. Very Anglo-Saxon in so far as assuming your responsibilities. The French are very critical of this but they don't go further in trying to recognise the positive side. I wondered therefore how it was in the States, conscious that the country is very big and I'm sure the attitudes must differ from state to state.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
