By MIKE RADOIU
Columnist
The News Leader
Pro-life. It's a powerful term and has been part of our political and religious lexicon for a long time. But what does it really mean? Taken literally, it would appear to describe the uncompromising support of preserving and nurturing human life. In reality, the application of the pro-life label is seldom used with any semblance of logic or consistency. As with many things, the devil is in the details.
The term "pro-life" has been the bludgeon used by many on the religious right in their ongoing moral crusade. On the surface, their apparent support for life appears natural and expected for people of faith. A closer look reveals quite a different truth. To them, the pro-life agenda focuses on three issues: abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. Glaringly absent from their debate are other equally compelling and obvious threats to human life. These include, but are not limited to, war, the death penalty, the battles against disease, poverty and hunger as well as a whole spectrum of peace and justice issues. These latter issues have always been at the forefront of the thoughts and actions of sincere people of conscience and faith. The omission of these life issues by the so-called pro-life movement reveals a blind spot in their vision. To limit the definition of which life needs preserving and in what context diminishes their cause's credibility. Why is it that they are more preoccupied with life in the womb or in a petri dish than after birth? Why the omission? Why the apparent compartmentalization?
The religious right defines life narrowly because it is easy and fits their parochial mindset. It's easy to support life in the womb, on a death bed or in the laboratory. An unborn baby or a terminally ill patient are easy to sympathize with as they epitomize innocence and vulnerability. I would argue that the life of a mother of four suffering from HIV/AIDs in Africa, the war orphan in Iraq or the wrongfully condemned prisoner here at home are just as deserving of the energies of committed people of faith. The conditions that put these people in life-threatening situations need to be addressed. Unfortunately, many who pretend to espouse the preservation of life find these more complicated and confusing threats to life uninspiring and not worthy of involvement or attention. Why bother with "liberal" causes like poverty, conflict resolution and global warming?
more...(For the record, the News Leader is based in Staunton, Virginia, which is a very conservative area. I predict many angry LTTEs in response to this! ~Cabcere)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
