Once more unto the breach, my friends….William Shakespeare — Henry V
Once again, James Gough has engaged in a war of words with me over my letter on the “war on women,” and once again he demonstrates his penchant for misunderstanding and illogicality.
He writes that my prose is “wordy” yet my editor at Harper and Row doesn’t think so.
He writes that I am “a nice old gentleman” whose “word processor has been commandeered by an elderly alien.” (Ageism, Mr. Gough, is no way to win an argument.)
And in his opening line, he states that he doesn’t wish to “continue a war on words” and then spends the next three columns doing precisely that.
Clearly, he agrees with Emerson that “consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”
Let us move on to more substantive matters.
Mr. Gough writes that “The wisdom manifested by the word ‘God’ outweighs that manifested by the title ‘doctor.’”
I think this is his awkward way of saying that God takes precedence over a mere mortal. Total agreement here.
But this raises an interesting question.
Which “God” is Gough referencing? Is it Zeus, Brahma, Vishnu, Jesus, Jehovah or Allah? (There are hundreds more, but space precludes their mention.)
If Mr. Gough has his God in mind and wishes to impose Him on the rest of us, there goes freedom of religion.
Gough is hoisted on his own petard. He has forgotten why our forefathers (and mothers) left Europe for the New World and tacked the First Amendment on to our Constitution.
Now, at the risk of being pedantic, let me introduce the philosophical distinction between absolute and relative values.
When Pope Francis talks about abortion and the death penalty, he opposes both.
This is because he takes an “absolute” position on the sanctity of life.
For him killing is wrong under any and all circumstances. It says so in the commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.”
A relativist takes the position that there are circumstances when killing can be condoned.
For example, you are drafted into the army during World War II. If you believe that Hitler is a menace to civilization, you are prepared to kill his troops.
Or, you may use a gun if an intruder enters your home and threatens the lives of your loved ones.
Mr. Gough takes the absolutist position on abortion. It is wrong even in cases of rape, incest, and life-endangering pregnancies.
The tragedy of the absolute position plays itself out on the world stage as follows.
In 1973, Congress passed the Helms Amendment. It was a reaction to the Roe v. Wade decision. It prohibited the use of U.S. foreign assistance funds for abortions.
A vindictive Congress, unable to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from legalizing abortion, directed their animus against helpless, poverty stricken women in the Third World.
As a result thousands of women have needlessly died.
The question that pro-life and pro-choice advocates must ask themselves is — are there any circumstances which would justify an abortion?
For pro-lifers the answer is a simple “no.” For pro-choice activists it is more complicated.
The full impact of our policy becomes clear with the following illustration.
A young girl in Syria or Iraq is raped by soldiers.
Even if she manages to flee her war-torn country for the relative safety of a refugee camp in neighboring Jordan or Lebanon, she may still have no choice but to risk her life giving birth to the rapist’s baby.
Thank you Jesse Helms.
Thank you U.S. Congress. And thanks to all the pro-lifers whose compassion extends to the unborn as long as it remains in the uterus.
Hal Sobel
Great Neck
