It is a favourite pasttime of abortion proponents to look for hypocrisy on the pro-life side. The irony of course is that the defense of abortion is bogged down with self-serving and shifting positions that I routinely challenge. In a recent two-part article in our Halton Pro-Life newsletter, I addressed a raft of matters that prove those whose primary objective is abortion virulently oppose choice.

This in no way suggests that hypocrisy is the exclusive province of one side or the other. Consequently, I am delighted to tackle a couple of popular myths of apparent pro-life hypocrisy based on our position that we are not just anti-abortion, but actively pro-life.

The most common “gotcha” that pro-aborts like to site is that pro-lifers defend capital punishment and the most egregious issue of violence or assassinations carried out against abortion doctors. I will address the first of these assertions in this blog and the second in my next submission.

Before going futher, though, I wish to clarify that being pro-life means that our interests are solely focused on protecting vulnerable human beings. As such, we take no position on animals (whether cuddly, ferocious, endangered or from any other character). We view human life as being of unique value and thus derserving of time and attention, so defence of the flora and fauna is outside our pro-life purview. Each pro-lifer is free to determine their position on these issues according to their own consciences, just as abortion proponents may adopt a more protective position on nature issues. This reality does, however, lead me as a pro-lifer to question their priorities.

Similarly, there is no blanket position on capital punishment for pro-lifers. Doubless, many abortion advocates already see the hypocrisy, but this is only if one wishes to be wilfully blind to the implications of what capital punishment is about. As I indicated earlier, the pro-life defence is for vulnerable (which includes innocent) human beings. This not mere semantics or slight of hand to avoid the hypocrite label. After all, we recognize that all rational people who defend captial punishment do not condone the random taking of life either out of whimsy or vengeance.

The compelling defence of capital punishment is that it is reserved for the vilest offenders that meet the highest standard of evidence to prove their guilt. These criminals have already shown a willingness to take innocent and vulnerable lives. As such, this is not killing of the innocent and arguably makes the case of ensuring more innocent lives are protected, either due to the deterrence factor or because the offenders themselves are no longer capable of perpetuating further violence.

I have changed my personal opinion on this matter several times, but have now settled on an  opposing position toward capital punishment. My rationale comes from a personal Christian view of redemption that leads me to believe (as I do of anyone who has had, or performs, an abortion) that all is forgivable and the death penalty may rob an individual of coming to that knowledge.

The troubling part for me is that liberal judges are so inclined to give chances and the benefit of the doubt to criminals that the risk of the offender returning to society becomes a very real possibility and life imprisonment has become a meaningless term.

Abortion and euthanasia are different matters altogether. In these situations, we know that the unborn and the pressure put upon the elderly, terminally ill, those with substantial mental and physical health problems being judged as having a duty to die make these the vulnerable and innocent we should all be invested in protecting.

If we really want to look hypocrisy squarely in the face, the focus should be on the large numbers of abortion advocates who oppose capital punishment. After all, the pro-life standard is that vulnerable and innocent life deserves protecting. Similarly, the common explanation put forth by those who oppose the death penalty is that, even given the narrow circumstances, the limited number of states where it is allowed, and that despite the extensive checks and balances, there is no guarantee that an innocent person won’t die for a crime they did not commit.

Isn’t that an apt descriptor of those lives being randomly killed without ever exiting the womb? Essentially, then, those who defend abortion but oppose capital punishment are saying that those convicted of capital crimes should not be killed based on the one in a million chance they are innocent, while any number of innocent unborn babies can be killed based on the absurd philosophical notion that innocent, unborn human beings may not be “persons.”

Tom Bartlett