The Issue of Carthage

Carthago delenda est. “Carthage must be destroyed." Cato the Elder ended all his speeches on the senate floor with this famous phrase even if Rome's long-time rival was not the immediate topic of debate. Whether he was speaking about state funding for aqueducts, his opposition to Hellenization, public works contracts, or the general state of the empire, Cato made sure to voice his desire that Carthage be eliminated from the map at every speech he gave. His animus towards the North African empire has led some historians to consider Cato the first instigator of a genocide. However, perhaps in less dramatic fashion, I could be bold enough to call him the first “single-issue voter”.

Unfortunately, in our day such a label when applied to the pro-life Christian, who is often enough deemed just as myopic in the voting booth as Cato was on the senate floor, is always meant as an insult. "How could one withhold their attention from generous proposals for public education funding or not support compassionate policies to alleviate poverty? How could one ignore the seemingly pressing need for more stringent legislation on gun control or disregard the need for less stringency in immigration protocol? How could one simply brush all these problems aside in favor of but one lonely issue- the protection of unborn life? What an inconsistent fool who chooses not to extend his compassion for those inside the womb to those outside it. Has he never heard of the seamless garment!"

But the faithful Christian who remains steadfast in his principles takes such derision as a compliment, because he knows the one primary issue he feels compelled to concern himself-the legal protection of pre-natal life- is more important today than that of the destruction of Carthage was in ancient Rome. He emphatically holds up this one issue as the issue to which all other topics of political and societal discussion in America ought to be judged and realizes that if a politician is not right on this issue- whatever benevolent policies he might campaign on, however charming his personality might be, however grand his promises of prosperity for the country are- he ought never be trusted.

The pro-life cause places the issue of abortion on a preeminent level because with its approval or rejection hinges the health of a sane and just society. Since the legalization of abortion, the growing disregard for human life at its early stages has evolved to such an extent that it is now debated as to what point terminating a human life should be considered legal. At 4 weeks post-conception? 8 weeks? 16 weeks? 20? Why not 36 or 39 weeks? When the killing of a human being outside the womb of its mother is regarded as a crime- but not the killing of one still inside it- the conclusion that much of our laws regarding murder is quite arbitrary is certainly understandable. For why should the intentional ending of an infant's life during the first week after birth be considered such a heinous breach of law when only a few months before (or even in some radicals' opinions only one week before) it should be considered protected by the same law if done by a "professional" within a clinic?

If one is genuinely clueless as to the reality of life within a mother's womb during pregnancy (and all its subsequent stages of development before birth) he might be given a pass for thinking his permissiveness of abortion is consistent with a moral code that also sees murder as intrinsically evil. However, we no longer have the handicap of biological ignorance to dull our thinking on this matter! On the contrary, we ignore what we do know in order to attempt to make abortion more palatable to us. As the professional journal California Medicine once published in 1971:

“Since the old ethic [the traditional Western ethic that places emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life] has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while the new ethic [which permits abortion for environmental and societal reasons] is being accepted the old one [which forbids murder because it violates the intrinsic worth of the human person] has not yet been rejected.”[1] 

It was quite clear to everyone (even as it was claimed to have been by our country's first proponents of abortion in the 1970s as demonstrated above) that pre-born life is real! The general public, only a few years before the Roe v. Wade ruling, had no doubt about this “scientific fact” as evinced elsewhere in a LIFE magazine article published in 1965. The very first line of it reads:

“The birth of human life really occurs at the moment the mother’s egg cell is fertilized by one of the father’s sperm cells.”[2] 

It is evident then our present ignorance lies not in this elementary knowledge of what is developing within the womb. Even a child knows this. Rather, it is found in the gradual numbing which has occurred to our consciences in relation to the dignity and sanctity of all human life- especially at its most vulnerable stage in the womb. Because of this almost abrupt mental numbing, people have since become carelessly distracted by a plethora of issues that, though perhaps important in themselves, pale in comparison to the seriousness of abortion.

An illustration might help to highlight my point. Suppose there was a man in charge of a household. He dutifully provides food for his family and clothes to make them look decent. He properly seals the roof above their heads protecting them from the elements and insulates the walls of their home to keep them warm. Making sure the plumbing system is up to code and all the drains clear, he even finds time to plant flower boxes at each window so that his children can admire the beauty of nature as they glance out into the world. This man is consequently admired by his neighbors for running such a well-ordered house. But there is one issue: despite such meticulous care on what is visible, the man has not seen the need to provide adequate ventilation in the house to provide its inhabitants with air to breathe. As a result then, his children drop like flies before he even has the opportunity to get dinner on the table.

Now, in such an admittedly absurd scenario as this, it would be quite foolish to commend the man for his good intentions and hard work if the end result was that his children suffocated through the very design of the house he constructed. Thus, we can reason from this, there is such a thing as a hierarchy of issues he ought to have considered in caring for his family, such that, prior to planting flowers outside, thought ought to have been given to the presence of fresh oxygen in his home.

It seems in present society our own oxygen levels have been depleted- and consequently, our thinking damaged- for our voting seems to mimic the man of folly who constructs his house with no ventilation but ensures that the rest of the house is sound. There is a hierarchy of issues we ought to concern ourselves with as well when we vote. Indeed, voting is complicated, but to paraphrase Oliver Wendell: there is such as thing as a simplicity on the far side of complexity. It is quite obvious to see that amid the complexity of comparing the moral value of different issues, the conclusion must be drawn that not all issues are equal. Some are more important, some less. We pass laws on criminalizing hate, we provide tax-funded assistance to the poor, we ensure our school systems get what they need; yet, amid the self-applause we give ourselves on how humane and caring our voting records are, the 47-year-long slaughter of the innocents continues to be established law in the land. While we squint with careful attention at other issues we see as important, we overlook the direct and overwhelming threat abortion poses to our society. Alas, the words of the 19^th century Italian author and politician Alessandro Manzoni could not be more aptly applicable to our times than any other: "We mortals…rebel furiously and violently against mediocre evils, and bow down in silence under extreme ones."[3] Indeed, due to our willful blindness, the fundamental right to life takes a back seat to all other issues in spite of the fact that all other issues only make sense if the right to life is protected! Topsy-turvydom would be a quite fitting description of our times if it were not such a fun-sounding word describing such grave confusion.

Yet we hear the pro-choicer (and unfortunately other “pro-lifers” who join him with their vote) retort: "Surely things are not so simple. If you make abortion illegal, people will still abort their offspring; thus, we might as well at least regulate it and make it safe. And besides, situations arise which warrant that the evil of abortion is to be permitted in order to prevent greater evils down the road like poverty and suffering."

But this is utter insanity! First, it is very simple- and indeed quite accurate, consistent, and necessary- to call out the intentional killing of innocent human life as always and everywhere evil, regardless if the victim is one anatomically developing within the womb or a fully functioning adult outside it. The only coherent way to construct any sort of moral code for a civilized society to live by is to at least agree that "Thou shalt not kill" is a good starting point that ought to govern all our relations and interactions with each other. Making murder illegal (i.e. making it illegal to take an innocent, defenseless human life) ought to be the single issue which reasonable people can agree eclipses, or, dare I say, trumps all others.

Second, how exactly does regulating abortion make it safe? Whether it be executed in the protected, sterile clinic of a Planned Parenthood or, as we are so often told if made illegal, in the supposed dirty back alleys of our cities, death is the intended result of the procedure regardless of where it takes place. It is perplexing then to think of death being somehow dealt out safely. Safely for whom?

Lastly, to the ethical proportionalist who thinks that abortion can somehow be considered a lesser of two evils. What greater evil can be conceived by the mind of man than the snuffing out of a child's life within the confines of a place that ought to be regarded as the most safe place in the world: inside the womb of its mother? Is the evil of an unjust tax system worse? Are less laws regulating environmental pollutants worse? Is denying access to some immigrants to enter our country really worse than denying access to some human babies to enter our world through birth? What moral calculation can be made to justify permitting abortion to exist in our country so that we might have some other societal good in exchange for it? To reiterate what Holmes once said, there is a simplicity on the far side of complexity.

Because abortion is a now considered a fundamental "reproductive right" our nation protects, all hallowed ground in the country has lost its holiness, all protected spaces have lost their protection, all proclamations of human dignity uttered by our founding fathers have been emptied of meaning. The long arm of the law chooses to stretch so far in just about every matter of life there is, yet it somehow stops short at the inner sanctuary of the maternal womb. Perhaps in former days it did not dare step across that threshold because it felt that law did not need to govern the relations between mother and offspring- only love, it judged, can adequately rule that bond. Unfortunately, now even in that most holy of sanctuaries- the very womb of a mother- love does not have the final say in our lawless society.

And this is precisely where we now find ourselves living: in a lawless society. A society unanchored by objective morality, unfettered by objective truth, unhinged from objective reality so much so that the crushing of a pre-natal baby's skull and the dismemberment of its limbs does not cause us to gasp in horror; instead we fervently enshrine the procedure doing it as a right protected by our law (or at least a right reluctantly accepted by citizens who for years have looked to other apparently more pressing issues). "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness"(Is 5:20).

Cato's hatred for Carthage has long been explained away as one Roman man’s anxiety about the growing strength of a neighboring empire across the Mediterranean. Moreover, his heated rhetoric against the Carthaginians, we are told, were mere expressions of one war veteran against an enemy with whom he had fought against years prior. Just another one of those rivals trying to resurrect an old feud.

But I invite us to consider something different. Perhaps Cato's railing against Carthage has more in common with the pro-lifer's stand against abortion than simply that the two had/have a single issue that dominated/dominates much of their political thinking. Perhaps that single issue itself is more similar than people think.

For, to see Carthage from the eyes of Cato is to see it in a dimmer light, or better yet, a clearer darkness. Maybe it was not Carthage's growing wealth that alarmed the statesman; maybe it was not its persistence in surviving so many Roman blows that concerned him; maybe it was not its conspicuous presence as a rival across the sea that caused him to call for its destruction.

Perhaps Cato's eyes saw the smoke from the Carthaginian fires lit in honor of their god Baal which consumed their young in holocaust. Perhaps Cato’s nostrils smelt the fumes rising from the sacrifice of Carthaginian children to that same Phoenician demon whose 450 prophets Elijah deemed worthy of slaughter as well (c.f. 1 Kings 18). Perhaps Cato’s heart did not want the flames of those paedo-pagan holocausts to leap across the Mediterranean to Rome itself and- not wanting the light that was Carthage to eclipse the Eternal City with its demonic shadow- his mind concluded the only defense Rome had against such darkness was to call for its complete and utter end.

Lest we too in America give off such a Carthaginian darkness to the rest of the world by the continuing sacrifice of our own unborn innocents, we must designate the issue of abortion as one of prime importance when we vote. For, just as Baal offered prosperity, comfort, and protection to Carthage in exchange for its babies, he seems to be the one making promises to us in exchange for our own as well- an end to racism, economic equality for everybody, the return of a new green world, the promise of health and happiness to all. All these things you can have if you just offer me one thing...your young. He does not seem to care if we burn them alive in holocaust or incinerate their small corpses after an abortion. He is satisfied either way.

Henceforward, instead of being distracted by other issues, good Christians must definitively cut off with their pro-life vote the ever-increasing supply of thousands of babies a year which, in the Land of Liberty itself, feed Baal’s demonic diet.

[1] “A New Ethic for Medicine and Society” in California Medicine. January 1971, 47. [emphasis added].

[2] “Drama of Life before Birth” in LIFE, April 30, 1965, 57.

[3] Alessandro Manzoni, The Betrothed, trans. Archibald Colquhoun (London, England: The Reprint Society, 1952), 384.