The Iraq war has become one of the most divisive issues of our day. This issue has now become so heated that it spills into many conversations.  Those of us who defend the dignity of life from conception to natural death have been challenged by those who are vehemently opposed to this war and, in some cases, to all wars.  It seems that those who are opposed to the Iraq war, have made this their number one political issue to the exclusion of other moral and family issues. This is a very troubling development.  People who normally would vote for conservative candidates are voting for liberal candidates because of the war in Iraq.  The 2006 election is a perfect example.

 In the 2004 Presidential election, it was not uncommon to encounter fellow Christian believers, whether Catholics or Protestants, who voted Democratic because of the issue of the Iraq war.  They felt that the Republicans were more supportive of the Iraq war than the Democrats and that this issue trumped all the other issues. It is paradoxical how a Christian believer can vote for a party that is so hostile to Christian values as the Democratic Party is on the most important moral issues of the day; issues such as marriage and the family, the dignity of life and the hostility to people of faith that we see in those who follow the politics of the left.

 I have coffee every weekday morning, after a walk at the beach, with a good friend and fellow conservative Christian believer. We call our coffee meetings, Yalta, after the famous meeting at this Russian city between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin during World War II. During the 2004 election we often marveled as to why fellow church members would vote for John Kerry. The main reason was the Iraq war. Why would a good Catholic, for instance, vote for John Kerry and ignore the fact that Kerry had voted against the ban on partial birth abortion, and that fact that he was so militantly pro-choice?  The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is a grave evil and anyone who cooperates with it in any way is subject to excommunication - Section 2270-2272 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 First of all, this is a very deep subject, and I cannot cover it in the detail that it needs – I try not to exceed two pages for any of these posts on this blog.  However, there is a basis for being pro-life and still supporting the Iraq war.  The answer starts with “The Just War Theory.”  This was a theory that was first postulated by St. Augustine in the fifth century AD and has been part of the Christian tradition to the present.  “Just war” deals mainly with waging war for defensive purposes.  Wars of aggression or for retribution are expressly forbidden.  In other words, only self-defense qualifies as the rationale for what would constitute a “just war.”  The main question regarding Iraq is whether a preemptive war qualifies as defensive.  Some people have suggested that preemptive use of force is de-facto an aggressive war. One of the most respected Christian thinkers of today on this subject is Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University.  Professor George did an interview on this issue for the National Review Online in October 2001 that is very eloquent and easy to follow.  I encourage you to read it; it’s only two pages long.  If you want to read why the Iraq war is a “just war” click here.

 The consensus among Christian "just war" theorists is that a preemptive war qualifies as a “just war” when it is determined by a legitimate government that the war is motivated by a reasonable belief that force alone will deter the enemy.  As far as the Iraq war is concerned, I believe that this test was met.  Let’s look at the facts. The intelligence agencies of the United States, Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France, all agreed that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).

 We also had ample proof that Saddam Hussein was not open to negotiations since he had ignored numerous United Nations resolutions; he had invaded two independent countries for the purpose of conquering them and his hate of America was well established. For a compelling and detailed documentation of these facts see an article by Norman Podhoretz titled “Who Is Lying About Iraq” which appeared in the Wall Street Journal  on November 14, 2005.  I owe this tip to Larry Elder, a popular talk-show host on KABC in Los Angeles who discussed this at length with his listeners in late 2006.

 Second, let’s look at some statistics to put these issues into perspective.  Let’s look at the war deaths for the major wars fought by the United States:

             War                            Years                            Total Deaths

             Civil War                     1861-65                        625,000

            WW I                          1917-1919                    116,002

            WW II                         1941-1945                    405,399

            Korea                          1950-1953                    54,246

            Vietnam                      1964-1975                    58,151

            Iraq                             2003-                           3,067 – 1/2007

             Totals:                                                            1,261,865

 We all recognize that the life of one individual is precious, but when you compare these statistics with how many innocent unborn babies are killed by abortion, there is no contest.  The total number of war deaths above, for a period of over 150 years, is less than the 1.4 million babies killed by abortion every year in the United States.  When you look at it from this perspective, is it more important to stop the Iraq war or to stop the continuing slaughter of the innocents? How does a Christian believer say that because of the Iraq war he or she will vote for a candidate that favors the continuing slaughter of the innocents but opposes the war in Iraq?  I fail to see this rationale.

It is easy to become quickly depressed with the daily reports in our news media of the deaths in Iraq - I can understand that.  I agonize over this myself.  No one knows the hurt that I feel when I hear that an American serviceman has been killed.  I feel the pain personally, not only because I weep for him/her and his/her family, but also because I myself am a Vietnam Veteran and have seen first hand what war is.  But, I ask you to step back and look at the big picture, so to speak and judge it based on all the evidence, not just emotion. I call it a logical view.                  

There is no doubt that the issues of the death penalty and abortion make for a lively debate.  I’m sure that, like me, you’ve encountered the argument by pro-choice advocates that those of us who are pro-life are too concerned with abortion and not concerned enough for the death penalty.  We’re often accused of being one-issue advocates.  Recently, at a church meeting, I was discussing the respect life ministry of our church with someone, and I was told that we should talk more about the death penalty and not so much about abortion, and if we did, more people would join the respect life ministry.

Now, it is true that a consistent pro-life stance must reject the use of the death penalty. I’ve often had this discussion with my wife.  However, I can’t help but notice a huge disparity between how many pro-choice advocates see a big problem with the death penalty and no problem with abortion.  I want to deal with this disparity in this piece.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that I agree that the death penalty and abortion should both be illegal.  Now, let’s look at the scope of the two issues.  Is the abolishment of the death penalty as critical in our society today as abortion?  Let’s look as some statistics for a start:

•    Since the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision 47,403,780 babies have been killed by abortion.  This is as I write this on 2/14/07 at 3:00 PM.  The number increases by approximately one per minute – about 1.4 million per year.

•    Since 1973 the United States has executed 1,061 convicted murders.

•    In Los Angeles County alone, in 2006, there were an average of 154 babies killed by abortion each day.

In 1973 when Roe vs. Wade was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, there was no death penalty in the United States.  Between 1968 and 1976 there were no executions.  In 1977, after the reinstatement of the death penalty, only one person was executed.  Between 1977 and 1983 only 10 people were executed.  Since Roe vs. Wade, the most executions in the United States occurred in 1999 when 98 people were executed.  Since then, the numbers have gone down every year.  In 2006, 53 people were executed.

According to the above figures, for every execution in the United States, there have been 44,678 unborn babies killed through abortion.  Which is the bigger problem?  If you have a faucet in your house that drips about one drop per minute and a broken pipe that gushes out enough water to flood your living room with an inch of water in one minute, which problem would you consider more pressing and in need of fixing?

We’re only speaking of numbers here.  There also is the huge moral issue of the taking of the life of an innocent pre-born human being vs. the state sanctioned execution of a convicted murderer. Not only is the execution sanctioned by the state, but before that can happen, the person executed must have been convicted by a jury of his peers and condemned to death by that jury.

In the case of abortion, there is no trial, no jury, and no verdict.  In the United States, a baby can be aborted up to the moment it is delivered, for any or no reason. One inch between the womb and outside the womb can mean life or death without consequences. Oh, you say there must be a reason according to the law.  Well, the reason can be the mother’s mental or psychological health and the mother can say that her mental health will be affected unless she has an abortion, so any reason will do.  There is, effectively, no reason needed for an abortion up to the time of delivery.  

Most people have not seen what an abortion does to the unborn baby.  The unborn is ripped up piece-by-piece and placed on a dish.  The doctor, then counts all the limbs and parts to be sure he has not left any pieces in the mother.  Particularly barbaric is the so called “partial birth abortion” where a baby, ready for delivery has his/her head crushed inside the womb and the brains vacuumed out.  To see pictures of these dismembered fetuses click here.

 President Clinton refused twice to sign a law banning this brutal procedure.  Most pro-choice politicians such as John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and most Democrats refuse to ban this procedure.  President Bush was the first to sign a law banning partial birth abortion.  The law was immediately challenged, and as I write this, the Supreme Court is considering whether to overturn it.

My argument in this article is not that the issue of the use of the death penalty is unimportant, it is, but how can you look at these numbers and not say that our more pressing problem is abortion.  Would you agree that the common cold is something you would like to eliminate?  Yes, I would like to eliminate the common cold, but we have many more lethal diseases to eliminate first, such as AIDS, cancer and many others.  Would you say to someone doing research on cancer, why are you not concerned with the common cold?

In Part I of this subject, I dealt with the contradiction of those who promote the elimination of the death penalty and still believe that abortion is permissible.  How many times have you seen opponents of the death penalty demonstrate in the streets against an execution?  In California, the last execution was that of Tookie Williams in 2006, a brutal murderer who killed four innocent people.  He never so much as apologized for it, yet the opponents of the death penalty demonstrated before his execution.  Where are these people when innocent unborn children are aborted?

The other day, while driving down the I-405 Freeway, I was listening to a talk show on the radio.  The talk show host was interviewing Professor Austin Sarat of Amherst College about his book Mercy on Trial: What it Means to Stop an Execution.  Professor Sarat was making the case for his belief that the death penalty is bad and should be abolished.  His arguments were well reasoned and logical.  According to Professor Sarat, the death penalty is unjust, unfair, and not morally defensible.  He argued that mercy is a kind of grace and part of American society, and that the death penalty damages American values.  The talk show host obviously disagreed with him and challenged him on many of his claims and reasoning.  After listening to this exchange for about 40 minutes I was impressed with the professor’s ability to defend his position and the power of his reasoning.  Then the talk show host went to the phones for questions from the public.

 The very first question came from a woman who challenged the talk show host to press the professor for more details about his arguments in support for the death penalty.  Specifically, she asked what was his position on abortion.  There was a pause and then the host asked the professor for his answer.  He calmly proceeded to explain that he was very much pro-choice and that it was a woman’s right to determine if she wants to bring a fetus to term and that no woman should be forced to bring a fetus to term.  Hold it right there, I thought to myself, as I exited the freeway.  I scratched my head and wondered about all the logical reasons he had given for why the death penalty is evil, but now the logic he gave for abortion follows no logic at all.  He calmly, and without hesitation, described that an unborn infant can be killed at will, just like it was a lamb being prepared for the slaughter.

In my previous two posts on this blog, I made the case for the sanctity of life and specifically made it my theme for this blog to follow logic and not pure, emotion.  This is, perhaps, the biggest problem I encounter when discussing issues related to the sanctity of life.  I find people arguing not by logic but personal preferences such as economic reasons, career reasons or financial reasons.  All ignore the humanity of the unborn – the only question that matters. 

If you took logic in college you learned about the syllogism and what is a valid or a false one.  A syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion; for example, All humans are mortal, the major premise, I am a human, the minor premise, therefore, I am mortal, the conclusion.   Both premises must be true in order to have a true conclusion. The most fundamental concept in logic is that of an argument.  An argument must be distinguished from "arguing", which is a debate or disagreement between different people. The logical concept of an argument is: a set of statements, one of which is the conclusion, the others are premises, and the premises support the conclusion. In other words, it is a statement along with the evidence that supports it.

 If you’re making an argument that the death penalty is evil based on mercy, morality, fairness and justice.  How can you then turn around and say that a human being that is in the womb does not deserve any of these?  Where is the logic?  Have you looked at an ultrasound of a pregnant woman? If you have not, go to www.priestsforlife.org/images where you can see fetuses at different stages.  I challenge you to deny that these fetuses are not human, after looking at these images.

What am I missing?  There is a complete disconnect here.  This is very common in the debate about respect life issues.  Those who believe that only some humans deserve protection have no logic behind their argument.  How can location determine whether or not you have human dignity?  Surely, if you move from the kitchen to the living room you don’t change who you are.  But this is precisely what the pro-choice side believes when it relates to the unborn.

The sad part of this is that many pro-choice people are religious believers also.  In the Catholic Church, for example, you have people who see no contradiction between their pro-choice beliefs and the church teaching that life begins at conception and deserves protection from that very point.  There are also many liberal Protestants who are pro-choice and see no contradiction between their religious beliefs and their pro-choice beliefs. 

Later this same day I was listening to another talk show where the host was interviewing Terry McAuliffe, the former head of the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, about his new book.  The conversation turned to Mr. McAuliffe’s pro-choice beliefs and his Catholic faith, since he mentioned in his book his Catholic faith.  He saw no contradiction between his beliefs and the church’s position on the sanctity of life.  He commented that his personal beliefs are his preferences of conscience and not a conflict with the church.  Basically, he follows his “heart.”  What?   What is going on with this kind of reasoning?

Those who follow their heart in making decisions and not the Bible are really saying that they are gods themselves.  Let’s dissect this.  If the Bible is not primary and your heart can be a substitute, then you are determining what is right and what is wrong, so why have a Bible? Why go to church?  In this case the Bible is no different than a novel, such as The Da Vinci Code, you accept some things and you reject what you don’t believe.  You decide; no Bible needed.

Unfortunately, I believe, moral relativism has taken hold in our culture and in our churches, and that morality no longer comes from any transcendent source such as the Bible.  No, the Bible no longer counts; we can make up our own minds based on our own conscience.  This is not only illogical but just plain crazy and morally confused.  Moral relativism is a self-refuting proposition.

 If you follow the tenets of moral relativism then no one can be wrong.  You can have two opposing views and they’re both considered true.  Just an example to make it clear - If I steal your stereo, what right do you have to tell me that I’m wrong?  After all I believe that my conscience tells me that if you have a stereo and I can’t afford to buy one then I can steal it from you.  Why would I be wrong?  If I follow my heart, who can tell me that I’m wrong? But this is exactly what people that follow moral relativism believe.  Of course, they would not call it moral relativism.  So, if I feel that a baby is not a human until its two years old, who is to say that I’m wrong?

There are very few people on the pro-choice side that follow the logic of their beliefs One of few that does is Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University.  Professor Singer believes, among other things, that you can kill yourself if you’re not experiencing pleasure, if you’re handicapped, and that a newborn baby can be killed even within two months after birth.   If you’re on the pro-choice side I’d love to hear your logic.