Protecting the Defenseless

It seems to me that both political parties can be blasted for not doing nearly enough to care for the most helpless in society. The fact that both political parties take great pains in convincing the nation that the "other political party" is evil in ignoring the needs of those who cannot help themselves leads to a degree of hypocrisy, as blind-spots are ignored. The moral mandate in Western societies can be traced to the Judeo-Christian biblical mandate to care for the fatherless and the orphans scattered all over the Old and New Testaments, but even the most hardened atheist would find the practice of caring for those who cannot care for themselves laudable.

Democrats have been particularly vocal in labeling the GOP as malevolent nihilists, eviscerating the Republicans for "holding hostage" the unemployment benefits extension and their opposition to the current health care bill which would provide coverage for the currently uninsured. Democrats have pointed to these two examples as proof positive that the notion of the "compassionate conservative" is claptrap, and that these right-wingers are clearly more interested in lining the pockets of the uber-wealthy, special interests, big businesses and banks. Progressives are even more infuriated at the so-called religious conservatives who seem to ignore the imperative to love their neighbors, clothe the naked, and feed the hungry in the name of "fiscal conservatism" and "budgetary responsibility."

This blade cuts both ways, and what's ironic is that most of those same progressives tear their hair out around the oppression and destruction of the weak while callously ignoring the plight of the most helpless in our American society - the unborn. The unborn have beating hearts and developing minds and bodies, yet that have no lobbying power - they cannot vote, they cannot contribute to political campaigns, and they have no voice to protest. But yet many progressives stand silent - or worse yet, argue in support - while hundreds of thousands of these unborn children are killed every year. There's nothing humane or honorable about this, regardless of the societal spin. Recently, a horrible case emerged where viable babies at an abortion clinic in Philadelphia, where babies were killed by cutting their spinal cords with scissors.

What would even be more laughable, if it wasn't so tragic, was former Governor Ed Rendell's comments on the matter:

"It's a tragic situation, obviously. All of those of us who are pro-choice abhor this, because it casts a negative light on that movement. All of us believe abortion should be legal, but that it should be safe. Clearly, what this physician was doing is not safe. It's not safe for the mother. It's certainly not safe for the fetus."

Thank you, Ed. So you abhor this episode not primarily because it's barbaric and horrifying, but because it casts a negative light on the abortion movement. Furthermore, you lament that this practice of cutting babies' spinal cords with scissors isn't safe for the fetus. Really? When you pro-abortion rights folks come up with an abortion procedure that's "safe" for the fetus, please let me know. Now let's go back to this oppression of the powerless thing.

The common lame retort of progressives is that the woman's right to "her body" enables her to do whatever she wants - even if that means ending an unborn life. Is there a clearer example of oppression and the gross abuse of power than for one to "have the right" to take the life of another? Progressives throw their hands up in disgust when "callous and evil" fiscal conservatives insist that they should have a right to their own money and choose not to give to the poor, yet applaud when one human exercises their perceived right to take the life of another. Which sounds like the more extreme example of those who are powerful oppressing the weak? The conservative who greedily prevents the poor family from getting affordable healthcare, or the woman who terminates the life of an unborn baby because having a child is inconvenient?

I condone neither. The abuse of power and the oppression of the weak by those who have power should categorically be condemned. Conservatives and progressives both have a lot to learn about the care for the weak. Until all of us take the mandate seriously to care for the least and weakest of these, our brothers and sisters, can we really draw closer to a society in which the strong and weak, rich and poor, influential and marginalized with live in harmony - or as written in Isaiah, "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them."