Warmongering
vs. the Sanctity of Life
by
Laurence
M. Vance
by Laurence M. Vance
Recently
by Laurence M. Vance: Should
the U.S. Military Go to Haiti?
Pro-life
Hypocrisy
Churches all
across America observed Sanctity of Human Life Sunday on January
24. Literature was passed out on the evils of abortion. Sermons
were preached on the sin of abortion. The 1973 Supreme Court decision
in the case of Roe v. Wade was denounced. The immorality of being
a doctor who performs abortions was proclaimed. The horrors of partial-birth
abortion were explained. Testimonies were read of women who regretted
having abortions and doctors who felt guilty in having performed
them. Prayers were made on behalf of women contemplating having
an abortion. Gruesome pictures of abortions gone awry were shown.
Calls were made for a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
Planned Parenthood was singled out for special condemnation. Yet,
nary a word was said about the ongoing slaughter of innocents that
is funded by the U.S. government.
Although I
sympathize with the pro-life cause, believing with Ron Paul that
"a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and
that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society,"
I must point out that many pro-lifers are hypocrites with a warped
view of what it means to be pro-life.
Do adults have
the same right to life as unborn children? Do foreigners have the
same right to life as unborn American babies? Many pro-lifers don't
think so. It is hypocrisy in the highest degree to talk about the
sanctity of life, the evils of abortion, the horrors of partial-birth
abortion, and to vocally claim that one is pro-life, but then turn
around and show contempt for, or indifference to, the lives of adults
and foreigners. Are the lives of unborn children more valuable than
the lives of adults? Are the lives of unborn American babies more
valuable than the lives of foreigners?
Absent from
most churches on Sanctity of Human Life Sunday was any reference
to the slaughter of tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans in unjust,
unconstitutional, immoral wars instigated by the United States.
U.S. soldiers have now been fighting in Iraq for seven years. They
have been fighting in Afghanistan even longer. Countless numbers
of Iraqis and Afghans have been killed by American bombs and bullets
in senseless wars of imperialism and occupation. Thousands of U.S.
soldiers died in vain thanks to the lies of the Bush administration.
Hundreds more have died under the Obama administration thanks to
the president's failure to bring the troops home from Iraq as promised
and the escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Do U.S. soldiers have
a right not to have to give their life in vain?
It is never
moral to kill someone and destroy his property unless one is acting
in self-defense. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are anything but
self-defense. The United States invaded sovereign countries thousands
of miles away that had not attacked us. Before the United States
invaded Afghanistan, not one American had been killed by an Afghan.
And before the United States invaded Iraq, not one American had
been killed by an Iraqi since the previous time we invaded Iraq.
But have not Afghans and Iraqis killed, injured, or maimed thousands
of U.S. soldiers? Of course they have. The sobering truth is that
Americans would do the same thing to foreign troops that invaded
our soil. We can call the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq regime
change, spreading democracy, nation building, or even retaliation
for the 9/11 attacks, but we certainly cannot call them wars of
self-defense.
The idea is
ludicrous, of course, that the invasion, occupation, and destruction
of Afghanistan and Iraq were in retaliation for, or even a legitimate
response to, the 9/11 attacks. None of the hijackers were from those
countries. In fact, most of the hijackers were from our ally, Saudi
Arabia. And as Ron Paul has pointed out over and over again, the
departure of the United States from the noninterventionist foreign
policy of the Founding Fathers in not interfering militarily, financially,
or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations is an important
reason 9/11 occurred. It is an arrogant, aggressive, interventionist
U.S. foreign policy that serves to recruit terrorists and increase
the hatred of foreigners toward the United States. The majority
of Osama bin Laden's venom is directed at the West for aggression,
oppression, and exploitation of Muslim lands and peoples, not because
he, like President Bush driveled, "hates our freedoms."
Over twice
as many U.S. soldiers have now been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq
than people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. About 250 times as
many Afghans and Iraqis have now died than people who died on 9/11.
Yet, pro-lifers who support these wars consider an American doctor
in a white coat a murderer if he kills an unborn baby, but an American
soldier in a uniform a hero if he kills a foreigner.
It is time
for pro-lifers to start being consistent. War is the greatest destroyer
of religion, morality, and decency. War is the greatest destroyer
of families and young lives. Foreigners who are no threat to this
country should have the same right to life as babies in the wombs
of American mothers. The right to life of U.S. soldiers should not
so needlessly be put in jeopardy. May the next Sanctity of Human
Life Sunday recognize the right to life of all people, American
and foreign, child and adult.
This originally
appeared at Campaign
for Liberty.
January
26, 2010
Laurence
M. Vance [send him mail]
writes from Pensacola, FL. He is the author of Christianity
and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State and The
Revolution that Wasn't. His newest book is Rethinking
the Good War. Visit his
website.
Copyright
© 2010 Campaign for
Liberty
The
Best of Laurence M. Vance
|