A seamless garment? (March, 2005)
Jay challenges us to consider broadening our concept of "pro-life" into a "seamless garment" that not only opposes abortion, but also war and capital punishment, and cares for the poor. "A narrowly focused 'pro-life' agenda leaves too much out."
I appreciate Jay's calling attention to the poor, and taking us to the Scripture. "God's concern for the poor is so obviously and powerfully described in hte Scriptures that one would have to purposefully ignore it not to see it... God takes oppression of the poor by the rich and comfortable very seriously. These are social and political issues but also profoundly moral and theological issues." I agree. And I commend him for trying to move past the "simplistic and absurd" stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives.
Where I'd challenge him:
The CDC reports that 28,034 infants died in 2002 [Table 31], a rate of 7.0 per 1000 births nationally. As Jay mentions, Mississippi has the worst state rate, at 10.3 (tied with Louisiana, though the District of Columbia is even worse, at 11.3). The two best states are Maine and Vermont at 4.4. If we were to reduce the national rate--every state--to this best-case, we would have saved 10,413 precious human lives.
The CDC also reports 846,447 abortions in 2001 [Table 2]. That's 80 times as many lives lost. Let's make this concrete: If Jay's article of, say, 600 words reflected this proportion, he'd write just 7 words about improving infant mortality, and the rest about ending abortion. Jay says "there is a silent tsunami going on around us--are we paying attention?" 10,000 to 28,000 human lives from infant mortality, 310,000 lives from the tsunami, 846,000 lives from abortion. Where, indeed, is this "silent tsunami?"
I agree completely, and commend Jay for advocating for the poor. But I'd challenge him to seriously reconsider his leftist influences (including The Nation magazine and Sojourners).
The free markets and technological advances of the west have done far more than anything else in history to help the poor. And Marxism has done more to increase poverty and oppression than anything else in history, crushing its subjects under a poverty so extreme the average person would give their eye teeth to change places with the worst off of Mississippi. (And those are the survivors--those not slaughtered wholesale by their own governments.) The left's enchantment with Marxism devastates its claim to advocate for the poor, from the New Left's endorsement of the Sandinistas, Cuba, Vietnam and Cambodia, to the old left's endorsement of the Soviet Union. This is the elephant in the room that the left ignores.
I'm not defending everything that Capitalism has accomplished. I'm not claiming that no injustice exists, or that the non-Marxist world is a bed of roses. I'm not claiming that there isn't much more we can do--there is. But the big picture is what it is, despite the left's selective analyses. Accurate analysis is the best starting-point.
War is tragic. But in the 20th century, more people have been murdered by their own governments in times of peace than have died in wars. If it's human life you're interested in, unqualified opposition to war isn't "pro-life." Again, the left's opposition to Vietnam paved the way for the Khmer Rouge's bloody reign, despite their desperate attempts to shift the blame.
Links and Footnotes:
I appreciate Jay's calling attention to the poor, and taking us to the Scripture. "God's concern for the poor is so obviously and powerfully described in hte Scriptures that one would have to purposefully ignore it not to see it... God takes oppression of the poor by the rich and comfortable very seriously. These are social and political issues but also profoundly moral and theological issues." I agree. And I commend him for trying to move past the "simplistic and absurd" stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives.
Where I'd challenge him:
[Jay wonders] why evangelical Christians aren't as concerned about infant mortality rates as they are about abortion rates.
The CDC reports that 28,034 infants died in 2002 [Table 31], a rate of 7.0 per 1000 births nationally. As Jay mentions, Mississippi has the worst state rate, at 10.3 (tied with Louisiana, though the District of Columbia is even worse, at 11.3). The two best states are Maine and Vermont at 4.4. If we were to reduce the national rate--every state--to this best-case, we would have saved 10,413 precious human lives.
The CDC also reports 846,447 abortions in 2001 [Table 2]. That's 80 times as many lives lost. Let's make this concrete: If Jay's article of, say, 600 words reflected this proportion, he'd write just 7 words about improving infant mortality, and the rest about ending abortion. Jay says "there is a silent tsunami going on around us--are we paying attention?" 10,000 to 28,000 human lives from infant mortality, 310,000 lives from the tsunami, 846,000 lives from abortion. Where, indeed, is this "silent tsunami?"
If pro-life people and especially pro-life Christians really believed in the sanctity of life they would care for it as much after the birth as before.
I agree completely, and commend Jay for advocating for the poor. But I'd challenge him to seriously reconsider his leftist influences (including The Nation magazine and Sojourners).
The free markets and technological advances of the west have done far more than anything else in history to help the poor. And Marxism has done more to increase poverty and oppression than anything else in history, crushing its subjects under a poverty so extreme the average person would give their eye teeth to change places with the worst off of Mississippi. (And those are the survivors--those not slaughtered wholesale by their own governments.) The left's enchantment with Marxism devastates its claim to advocate for the poor, from the New Left's endorsement of the Sandinistas, Cuba, Vietnam and Cambodia, to the old left's endorsement of the Soviet Union. This is the elephant in the room that the left ignores.
I'm not defending everything that Capitalism has accomplished. I'm not claiming that no injustice exists, or that the non-Marxist world is a bed of roses. I'm not claiming that there isn't much more we can do--there is. But the big picture is what it is, despite the left's selective analyses. Accurate analysis is the best starting-point.
[Cardinal Joseph Bernardin] used the image of a "seamless garment," linking opposition to abortion, war, and capital punishment.
War is tragic. But in the 20th century, more people have been murdered by their own governments in times of peace than have died in wars. If it's human life you're interested in, unqualified opposition to war isn't "pro-life." Again, the left's opposition to Vietnam paved the way for the Khmer Rouge's bloody reign, despite their desperate attempts to shift the blame.
-------
Links and Footnotes:
- A perspective on the Sojourners leftist politics, including their history.
- Sojourners web-site.
- National Right To Life scrutinizes Glen Stassen's abortion analysis
- U.S. infant mortality statistics from the Centers for Disease Control.
- World Health Organization's child mortality comparison, region of the Americas and much of the former Soviet Union
By The Scrutinator, 3/31/2005
|
0 comments
