Sunday, October 28, 2012


We read and hear a great deal about the sanctity of life, and that life is sacred.  It really is a very nice idea; unfortunately it is either not true, or if it is true our society pays no attention to it, except when it serves our cause.  Let me elaborate,

If life is indeed sacred, then we should, under NO circumstances, without exceptions, willfully destroy a life.

But few of us would accept that position.  If we, or our loved ones were threatened we believe it would be acceptable to fight back, even if it meant taking a life.  As soon as we accept that premise, then we are saying…Life is sacred, EXCEPT if we are protecting ourselves from a predator.
But what about war, and that thing we call collateral damage, where innocent people, not predators, are being killed.  That’s OK, isn’t it?  And then there is the death penalty, where we routinely kill people because of what they have done, or tragically, what they have not done.

Now we have three exceptions, and I’m sure with a little more effort we could find several more.

So when someone claims they are “pro-life”, and that they believe in the sanctity of life, what they are really saying is this; they believe life is sacred, but with a few exceptions.  And I believe that once you begin making any exceptions, then the sanctity of life becomes a hollow refrain.

So drop the sanctimonious banner of being pro-life because life is sacred. The real argument is about the exceptions, and how we, as a civil society decide what they should be.  It is not about being “pro-life”; we all are, whether we accept abortion, or the death penalty, or even collateral damage.  However, reasonable have differing views on what these exceptions should be.

No comments: