The basic tenet for the pro-life position is equality. Regardless of the stage of human life, all human life is considered to be equal. As a result, most pro-lifers believe that pre-born life must be protected by law. Pro-lifers do vary in terms of what exceptions should be allowed such as in the case of rape or when the mother's life is in danger.
Pro-choice advocates see things differently. Pro-choice advocates struggle with equating life in the womb with life outside the womb. Certainly this is understandable when comparing a child or adult with an embryo especially when keeping the pregnancy would place a mother in a difficult situation.
This difference between pro-life and pro-choice advocates point to the different definitions used to define human life. Pro-life advocates tend to define human life both objectively and universally by defining human life biologically at conception. The pro-choice definition of human life is more subjective and selective in that it states that the expectant mother is the one who should determine the human status of the unborn. One reason for this belief is the emphasis that pro-choice advocates place on the rights of the mother. Another reason for this belief is that pro-choice advocates do not believe an unborn life has enough characteristics that would qualify it as being human.
Both sides hold positions that are problematic. For example, pro-choice advocates view babies who are born prematurely to be fully human while they do not give the same recognition to unborn life who are more physically developed. The only characteristics that such prematurely born children have that more developed unborn life do not have are due to location.
On the pro-life side, while there is legitimate concern over using embryos for stem-cell research, there is no such concern for discarded embryos. A more important problem, however, is that the pro-life belief in equality is not always applied to the post born. This is especially true for many pro-life conservative Christians who show an abundance of concern for Israel while being apathetic to the suffering of the Palestinians. The problem here is not their concern for Israel but their lack of concern for the Palestinians.
Reasons why these pro-life advocates do not treat Palestinians as equals are sometimes based on religion. For example, some pro-life advocates believe in Christian Zionism. Christian Zionism states that immigrants who are of Jewish descent have a greater right to the land promised to the descendents of Abraham than indigenous Arabs.
Another reason why pro-life Christians promote this inequality might have to do with familiarity. Zionism is a European venture in the Arab Middle East. In addition, pro-life Christians feel more solidarity with Jews than Muslims.
Whatever the reason, when pro-lifers do not promote equality for Palestinians, they betray the basic principle on which the pro-life position is based. An argument that is often made for this promotion of inequality of Israelis over Palestinians is the perception that Israel's existence is at great risk. However true that might be, all of the objective data indicates that Palestinians face more danger than Israelis do.
When one compares their infrastructures, economies, unemployment rates, and GNP, it is easy to see which group's existence is more endangered. In addition, when one compares the violence that each side practices on the other, it is the Palestinians who are more threatened than Israel is. It is Israel that is destroying the infrastructure of the other side. It is Israel that has killed over 600 Palestinians compared to the Palestinians having killed over 20 Israelis in 2006 alone. It is Israel that is demolishing homes and confiscating land. And it is Israel that uses its military to greatly restrict travel of the Palestinians and not vice-versa.
If our belief in the equality of all human life moves us to be pro-life, then it should also move us to be pro-Palestinian. That means we should support the Palestinian venture to have a state that is equal in terms of rights and prosperity to Israel. At the same time, we cannot be pro-Palestinian without qualification. That qualification is that we cannot support Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians. This violence must be opposed at all times. Similarly, our belief in equality should cause us to give the same qualified support for Israel.
A test for whether one believes in equality can be seen in how a person supports the rights of those that are different. American pro-lifers pass this test when they work to protect the rights of the unborn regardless of their stage of development. But they fail this test when it comes to advocating the rights of those who are born who hold to a different religion or come from a different culture.
Curt Day is a religious flaming fundamentalist and a political extreme moderate. Curt's blogs are at http://flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ and http://extrememoderate.blogtownhall.com
Very good article. Why the Christian right stands so strongly behind "Right to Life" or pro-abortion and are so war minded and so pro-death penalty amazes me. I think that the Palestinian State will happen as soon as Hamas recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist safely within her borders. Until that recognition of Israel's right to exist, the suicide bombers stay within Palestine and the rockets stop exploding across the borders of Israel, there is not going to be statehood for Palestine.
This was offered to Arafat at the Oslo accords and he flat walked away from them. The radicals Israelis and the radical Paslestinians are in total control of the situation. Until the moderate Arabs and the moderate Palestinians stand up to the radicals, you will see exactly what is happening in Palestine until one side explodes a nuclear weapon on the other. It will happen if a change is not made within the next few years.
Iran and others radical Muslims love the Palestian situation and do not want it to change because Palestine is the spearhead they are using for world conquest. One of the keys is Jerusalem. The Jews and the Muslims want it just for themselves. The Muslims want the Dome of the Rock where no gentile can walk, and the Jews want to rebuild the Temple where no gentile can walk. What is gentile? It depends on who defines it-- a Jew or a Muslim.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 969 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 9:39:04 AM
As a Jew, it is frustrating to see hawks like Beebee Netanyahu so ready to start war with almost anyone. And there are the the religious extremists on either side too. Never forget that the Wahabi Sunni and the Ayatollahs who pull Ahmadinejead's strings and the ultra orthodox Jewish settlers who put salt in the Palestinians wound all act to stir up the hornets' nest.
There are too few Muslims or Jews on either side taking a stand, speaking out for peace. Just continuing the dance of accusation is not the solution.
Of course, the Christian Zionists are misguided at best, twisted and devious at worst, doing no good, as they pray for a mid east conflagration that produces their fantasied rapture.
by
Rob Kall (869 articles, 4016 quicklinks, 345 diaries, 1847 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 9:51:03 AM
Thank you for your comments here. They remind me of Nader's Middle East position during the 2004 Presidential election. He said that we should leave both Sharon and Arafat and align ourselves with those Israelis and Palestinians who are advocating peace.
Unfortunately for myself, I must include some of my fine fellow flaming fundamentalists friends with Nader's list of Sharon and Arafat--that includes my mom.
by
Curt Day (43 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 41 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 11:28:24 AM
They are some things you may have missed. Hamas had practiced a 16+month moratorium against attacking Israel. They have also offered both a truce and recognition of Israel if Israel returned to the '67 borders. In fact, in 2003 Iran also offered to recognize Israel if Israel returned to the '67 borders. Israel's response was to continue home demolitions, land confiscation, targeted assassinations, and military strikes. That Arafat walked away from what was offered before is contested by Israeli activist, Uri Avnery. In "The Other Israel", Avnery writes an article claiming that it was Barak who walked away.
We cannot use the above to make Israel a scapegoat however. Both Israel and the Palestinians are guilty of crimes against humanity. History teaches us that treating others inhumanely is a human tradition. But what we should note from the above is that the behavior of Israel indicates that they are more of an obstacle to peace than the Palestinians--though the Palestinians also show themselves to be an obstacle. What I disagree with in your note is that you seem to say that if the Palestinians behave, we will have peace. There are too many in the Israeli gov't who prove that contention wrong.
We should focus on the actions of Israel that prevent peace right now for one reason and one reason only--they have the most power. Those who have the most power, carry the greatest responsibility. But our focus on Israel's actions does not mean we neglect Palestinian violence--that too must be opposed.
I would hope that you visit Israeli websites such as B'Tselem's website, my two references come from there, as well as check out the Gush Shalom website. I hope that after you read those websites, you see that both sides are at fault here.
by
Curt Day (43 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 41 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 11:23:23 AM
CadayS--"Re: State of Israel---State of Palestine"
I have visited said web site a number of times. I think you are wrong about Hamas. They have stated time and again that they will never recognize the State of Israel which they equate with Zionism. As far as Iran, who knows what they promise. It seems to change day by day. The Palestinians was offered Statehood in the Oslo accords and Israel offered to return to the pre-67 borders. You can read those accords for yourself. Everyone thought is a done deal until Arafat walked away with no explanation whatsoever. When Arafat did that, it threw the "moderate" Israeli into the arms of an irate Sharon. It was for this reason Yitzhak Rabin was murdered by a radical right wing Israeli at the end of 1995. Prime Minister Rabin had put all of his capitol in the signing of the accords. If you will remember, the Israeli press and the right wing led by Netanyaho viciously attacked Rabin even demanding his resignation for offering the Palestinians too much and threatening Israeli security. The vote in the Knesset was almost fifty-fifty with Rabin wining by just a very few votes. Many in Palestine were upset, too, such as Hamas.
Imad Falouji made a speech bragging about planning the Intifada even before Arafat came back from Camp David, and then Sharon did his reckless visit to the Dome of the Rock. Sharon intentionally inflamed the Muslims with this stupid trip. I think he was as surprised with the Palestinian's Second Intifada or The al-Aqsa Intifada as Hezbollah and Iran were surprised by the Israel invasion of south Lebanon because of the kidnapping and murder of ten Israelis in Israel by Hezbollah. It is the most dangerous area in the world right now with nothing but blackness in the immediate future.
I agree with you on most of your reply to my comments. I am not anti-Palestinian. I want them to get their free state and want Israel to leave them alone. I want Israel to be very secure within her own borders for mark my words for the Jews to go back before 1948, it will mean another "kill a Jew a day" as everyone's favorite hobby everyplace in the world. The Palestinians can lose many battles and many wars. The Israelis lose just one war and it is kaput forever for them.
Phil
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 969 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 4:29:35 PM
Again, both Hamas and Iran have offered to recognize Israel contingent on Israel returning to the '67 borders. Hamas also offered a truce based on the same and Hamas kept 16+month moratorium against attacking Israel. These are facts.
Whether Hamas would have kept their word on those two offers is another matter. Israeli academic, Naomi Chazan, stated that we needed to put Hamas into the position of having to keep their word. Israel did not take that opportunity.
by
Curt Day (43 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 41 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 6:21:16 PM
Hamas Willing to Recognize the Sovereign State of Israel?
Where may I find the article or whatever that Hamas is willing to recognize the Soverign State of Israel? As of two weeks ago they were not willing unless they are saying different things to different people.
Phil
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 969 comments)
on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 10:27:32 PM
Phil,
It is not that Hamas is saying different things to different people, they are saying different things in response to different situations. When they came out and said they were willing to recognize Israel if Israel returned to the '67 borders, it was met with continued military responses from Israel as was their moratorium against attacking Israel.
by
Curt Day (43 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 41 comments)
on Sunday, January 7, 2007 at 7:35:12 AM
I keep up with the Middle East pretty much. I have never heard or read anywhere the claim that Hamas was willing to recognize Israel's right to be a Sovereign State if she was willing to go back to the pre '67 borders. The Oslo accords outlined exactly that position. Israel signed, Arafat seemed to be ready to sign and walked away from them at the last minute. Israel gave up so much in those accords that the radical right wing murdered Rabin for signing them.
Is there a newspaper which covered Hamas as being willing to accept the Sovereignty of Israel or is there a web site I can go to see it?
Thanks,
Phil.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 969 comments)
on Monday, January 8, 2007 at 9:51:11 AM
Usually stuff like Hamas recognizing Israel is not reported by the American media because of their bias towards Israel. But the first I saw of it was on a ticker. I have also seen an article by a Hamas leader acknowledging this. And finally, below is a link documenting what I have been saying:
As for Arafat walking away, I don't know why you do not check the references I have given you. Again, according to Uri Avnery, an Israeli activist, it was Barak who walked away and not Arafat. I believe that Chomsky also cites this to be the case as well but I am not exactly sure.
Arafat wanted to continue negotiations while Barak got cold feet. Again the reference is a Uri Avnery article in the book: "The Other Israel"
by
Curt Day (43 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 41 comments)
on Monday, January 8, 2007 at 4:15:51 PM
10 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
