Abortion & Muslim Terrorism
May 2006By Andy Nowicki
Andy Nowicki, author of The Psychology of Liberalism, is an English teacher at Waycross College who lives in Hinesville, Georgia.
At this time of the "changing of the guard" of the two Supreme Court justices in quick succession, many wonder about the future of legalized abortion in the U.S. With a Republican President and a GOP-controlled Congress, could prolife forces finally be about to get the upper hand? Social conservatives hope, and social liberals fear, that a newly formed Court will overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision which quite arbitrarily -- in what one dissenting justice called an exertion of "raw judicial power" -- mandated that states have no right to restrict abortions.
This hope, indulged in primarily by Christian Right voters who are faithful adherents to the GOP, is easily negated. I won't belabor the reasons why prolife Bush-backers are naïve in their positive assessments of the current President and his Party, since such observations have already been exhaustively made in these pages. I will simply note that President Bush himself hardly seems eager to touch the subject of abortion, except obliquely when necessary, in order to garner support from his base, and that the GOP today has altogether more enthusiasm about invading other countries in a hubristic effort to spread "democracy" and export dubious American cultural values than it does about preventing the continued, willful, and brazen destruction of innocent human life at home.
Instead of refuting the naïve Christian voters who put their trust in opportunistic political hucksters, I wish to address something deeper and more profound regarding the overall ethos of the prolife movement today. While throwing in their lot with the GOP may be a tactical mistake on the part of prolife activists, this mistake is a symptom of a larger, more complex failure on the part of the prolife movement. The biggest problem is one of attitude. In a nutshell, the American prolife movement suffers from a peculiarly American vice: excessive optimism.
Accompanying this notion of "if there's a will, there's a way" is an impatience with abstractions. In fact, we're so uncomfortable with abstract concepts that our elected leaders frequently declare war on them. Once we had the "war on poverty"; now we are waging the "war on terror." Similar rhetorical fronts have opened up against "hate," "ignorance," and "racism." Such "wars" are, however, pathetically inadequate in the face of unspeakable tragedy and evil. There are in this world, after all, tragedies so immense and evils so black that no sense can be made of them, that one can only weep endlessly at the spectacular, stupendous horror of it all.
You have two options:
Subscribe now to New Oxford Review for access to all web content at newoxfordreview.org AND the monthly print edition for as low as $38 per year.
Single article purchase:
Purchase this article for $1.95, for viewing and printing for 48 hours.
If you're already a subscriber log-in here.
Back to May 2006 Issue
|Read our posting policy
Add a comment
|I do not put abortion on the back burner and Al Qaeda on the front burner. Because I support Bush most of the time it is not all the time and all issues are important. I hate someone arrogantly talking down because you oppose the war.
First of all this war is not and never was about Al Qaeda. It's about Islam. An ideology based on the covenants of its Koran that is the exact opposite of American values. A murderous cult by any definition. A terrorist organization by any definition.
Islam is straight from the bowels of Hell. It's a pity that when Muslims call you Swine and Apes that it apparently means nothing of meaning to you and this is the trivial part. Islam has openly declared war on us via literature in their mosques and schools. This was just reported in the WASHINGTON POST.
Only fools ignore the history and present atrocities of this murderous cult. They were 8000 war-like conflicts last year alone all across the world from Bali to Darfur, all involving Muslims.
Don't talk down to us as you but show your ignorance Of Islam, and the fact we are at war on the homefront with 2998 lives already lost in 9/11 to Muslim Terror already excluding our Iraq and Afghanistan heroes.
How convenient for you to have forgotten 9/11 and its Islam perpetrators and have chosen a very narrow view of a tiny contingent of Bin Laden's.
|Posted by: paulc37
May 29, 2006 12:43 PM EDT
|Paulc37 says the war on Iraq is about opposing Islam. He may see it that way, but George Bush and his cronies don't. In fact, Bush has repeatedly said that Islam is a 'religion of peace' -- a preposterous statement by any measure.
I doubt Nowicki has lost sight of 9/11 as Paulc37 suggests. Rather, the author simply doesn't subscribe to the dubious logic that says: invading Iraq is just retaliation for the acts of terrorism perpetrated on 9/11/2001.
Many people seem to be unable to make up their minds: is this a war of retaliation for 9/11 (if so, why Iraq, and not, say, Saudi Arabia, too)? Is this a war against the religion of Islam (If so, why attack a country whose leader was not a religious Muslim?) Is this a war against Saddam Husein because he possessed 'weapons of mass destruction'? (If so, where are the weapons of mass destruction now that the US et al have invaded? and, why not invade North Korea, a country that we know for certain has bona fide WMDs?)
I assert: one can believe that Islam is a diabolic religion that is incompatible with Christianity AND at the same time believe that it was unjust to invade and occupy Iraq. Think about that.
|Posted by: nortemp
May 30, 2006 10:22 AM EDT
|I agree with you, nortemp. I would add that the main point of the article was the evil of abortion, not the war on terror. It's clear enough that we, as a country, are very uncomfortable with the threat of terrorism, and that we're willing to do whatever is necessary to protect ourselves against it. It will be a good day when Americans are uncomfortable with the threat of abortion, as well.
||Posted by: Fr_Richard
June 08, 2006 09:54 AM EDT
|Add a comment
The title of the rebooted John Paul II Institute for 'Marriage and Family Sciences' comes directly from the 1966 birth-control 'report'
squashed by Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae.
Pope Francis has closed the Institute set up by St. John Paul II to study marriage and family life, replacing it with a new Institute with
a different focus.
The Archdiocese of Baltimore will not release files on an accused dead priest after a Netflix documentary series looks at links between the
abuse and a nun's unsolved murder.
The superior general of the Belgian Brothers of Charity has warned the Brothers may withdraw sponsorship from their psychiatric hospitals.
Parliament discusses the case of a lynched Christian student and 'inter-religious harmony' as a subject in all public schools.
Hospitals named for the Belgian Brothers of Charity defy the Pope by continuing to allow euthanasia despite being ordered to stop.
more news links...