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:
Post a Comment