Thursday, January 17, 2008

Why I'm Not A Liberal--Part Three

This year marks the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Now, forget the fact that Roe was a gross overreach of the Court considering the issue had been handled exclusively by the states since the founding of the Republic or that even the most liberal law professors scoff at the majority's "logic" today or that both Jews and Christians opposed abortion unanimously for thousands of years and simply ask yourself this question: If there is even a possibility that there is a God and that what breathes, moves and even dreams within the womb is a human being then aren't we risking cold, hard murder that we will have to account for one day?
Now while even many secular bioethicists concede that the "pro-choice" position raises "disturbing issues" , the majority of liberals argue: (1) that they are simply advocating the least-worst option as they do not want a child born into an impoverished home where he or she is not wanted; and (2) that it is only one issue and that no one, even Christians, should be one issue voters. This argument is especially popular among my "emergent" friends.
First of all, the overwhelming majority of those who have abortions are not impoverished, uneducated people but middle and upper class women who simply don't want to be bothered with a pregnancy but are perfectly capable of seeing the pregnancy through and then seeing that the child gets a good home (and the waiting lists for such domestic adoptions are loooong!).
Second, ask an emergent or any liberal if they were alive at the time if they would have voted for a candidate who opposed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 or a pro-slavery candidate in the 19th century or an isolationist candidate who opposed stopping Hitler in the 30's and 40's? Aren't these "single issues"? Were abolitionists or civil rights activists "narrow"? Of course not! So, why is the effort to stop the slaughter of unborn children any different?
Yet another reason why I'm not a liberal.