I recently had a very good conversation with a friend from school about my adamant stance against abortion. I hope to represent what he stated because his challenge to me is extremely important to all of us and vitally important to the issue at hand. Looking at the landscape of America right now, it does seem very possible that abortion will not be ending soon. According to my friend, if abortion were to be ended tomorrow, what would America do with all of those children? I kind of gawked at the question (which he quickly pointed out) because this doesn't work. If the child is truly a child in the womb then we are killing a person, a soul, a possible human being. Does that mean that we are going to start killing off everyone else because they cause a burden on society? Does that justify even partially accepting the 1 million babies who are aborted each year?
I think my friends argument is seriously flawed, and hopefully he will see that, however he does bring up a legitimate point and in many ways its one worth considering. It goes like this. The Democrat party has made it a platform, for the most part, to push for a "less-abortion" society. No Democrat would state flat out that abortions are "good" for society (a serious flaw in the logic of their argument) but they will state that the greater good is the woman's right to chose. Many Republicans gleefully declare that they are for an "abortion-less" society, with provisions for certain cases, and that abortion on demand should be eliminated all together. The question I posed to my friend then is which is better?
If abortion is truly the killing of a person, the most innocent of persons, then it truly is worse then slavery. However, many injustices happen all over the world, all of the time. Which should be the center of our focus more? I encourage you to read Jim Wallis' interview with ChristianityToday to get the full context of his answers to the abortion question because I do agree with him on some parts. However, I do not agree and utterly reject the following:
"I don't think that abortion is the moral equivalent issue to slavery that Wilberforce dealt with.I think that poverty is the new slavery. Poverty and global inequality are the fundamental moral issues of our time. That's my judgment."Wallis' answer here is drastically unrealistic and sadly seems to be the view of many who are tired of the false promises of politicians promising to "end abortion". Slavery/poverty/etc. are devastating issues that affect the "sanctity of life" there is no doubt. Wallis rightly points out later in the interview that something like 30,000 children die from starvation a day. That is frankly unacceptable and should be combated. However, I would argue that abortion is truly a grave and utter crime that is worse then slavery, as horrendous as poverty and slavery were and are, if the child is truly a child. If the "fetus" is a child then the abortion is a policy of death which is the law of the United States. We fight slavery and poverty, we promote and fund abortion? Which is worse?
Therefore, the question still remains. Which is a better society? Wallis uses the illustration of Wilberforce and I find that interesting given that many echoed Wallis' arguments AGAINST Wilberforce's fight to defeat slavery. Wilberforce, however, realized as I do, that while slavery was truly a stain on national integrity, he had to continue to convince and fight for it. Many around us today are telling us to knock it off, there are other issues, don't be a one issue voter. I commend them for their apparent ability to ignore the death cries of almost an entire generation. I, however, will agree with them that I am working for a "less-abortion" society and that extends from beyond the womb into all manners of life. However, I dream of the day when there will be an "abortion-less" society and fight on to see that in my time. To state that it will never happen is a travesty. Therefore, I am a one issue voter because a person who does not have that as his/her goal will not get my vote; period.