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 topic of discussion. Whether speaking of funding for aqueducts, his opposition to Hellenization, or public works contracts, Cato made sure to voice his desire that Carthage be eliminated from the map at every opportunity he had. His animus towards the North African empire has led some historians to consider him the first instigator of genocide, but perhaps a less heavy charge we could give him is that he was the first single-issue voter.

Unfortunately for the pro-life Christian, who is similarly called the same, such an appellation is almost always meant as an insult. "How could one ignore considerations of public education funding, or policies to alleviate poverty, or immigration reform, or gun control legislation, in favor of but one lonely issue, the protection of unborn life? What an inconsistent fool who does not extend his consideration for those inside the womb to those outside. Has he never heard of the seamless garment!"

But the faithful Christian who is steadfast in his principles takes the insult of being call a fool for the unborn as a compliment, because he knows that the one issue he primarily concerns himself with is more important today than issue of the destruction of Carthage was to ancient Rome. He emphatically holds up this one issue of the protection of unborn human life as the issue to which all other topics of political and societal discussion ought to be held up to and realizes that if one is not right on this issue, benevolent policies, charming personalities, or promises of prosperity are not to be trusted.

The pro-life cause is willing to give the issue of abortion preeminence because with its approval or rejection hinges the health of a just, logically-consistent, and sane society. Since the legalization of abortion, the growing disregard for human life at its early stages has grown 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 intentional killing of a human outside the womb of its mother is deemed a crime, but not the intentional killing of one still inside it, a person could be excused for thinking that much of our legislation regarding murder is quite arbitrary. Why should the intentional ending of an infant's life during the first week after birth be considered such a heinous crime when only a few months before (or in some radicals' opinions one week before) it would be considered protected by the 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 permission of abortion is consistent with a moral code that sees murder as intrinsically evil. However, we no longer have the handicap of biological ignorance to dull our thinking to such an extent. On the contrary, we ignore what we do know in order to make abortion more palatable to us. As the professional journal California Medicine published in 1970: "Since the old ethic [i.e. the traditional Western ethic that places great 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 would allow for abortion for environmental and societal reasons] is being accepted the old one [which forbids murder because it violates the intrinsic worth of a person] has not yet been rejected." (A New Ethic for Medicine and Society).

Or to put it more simply, one need only read the first line of a LIFE magazine article entitled "Drama of Life before Birth" from 1965: "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."

It is quite clear to everybody - even as it was to our country's first proponents of abortion in the 70's, even as it was to the general public only a few years before the Roe vs. Wade ruling- that pre-natal life is real. No, the real problem lies not in ignorance of what is developing within the womb, but in the gradual numbing that 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 numbing, people have easily become distracted by a plethora of issues that, though perhaps important in themselves, pale in comparison to the seriousness of abortion.

An illustration may help to highlight the 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 keeping them warm. Making sure the plumbing system is to code and 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. The man is admired by his neighbors for running such a well-ordered house, but there is one issue. Despite such meticulous care, 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, his children drop like flies before he can even get dinner on the table.

In such an admittedly absurd scenario, 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 design of the house he constructed. 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 first been given to the presence of fresh oxygen in his home.

It seems in our own society our oxygen levels have been depleted and, as a consequence, 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. Yes, voting is complicated, but as Alfred North Whitehead told us there is a simplicity on the far side of complexity. It is quite clear to see that amid the complexity of comparing the moral value of different issues the conclusion must be drawn that all issues are not 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 are squinting with careful attention at other issues we see as important, we are overlooking the direct threat abortion poses to our society. Alas, the words of the 19th-century author and politician Alessandro Manzoni could not be more aptly applicable: "We mortals rebel furiously and violently against mediocre evils, and bow down in silence under extreme ones." 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.

But we hear the pro-choicer (and 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 so 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, like poverty and suffering, from happening."

But this is insanity! It is very simple- and indeed quite accurate and necessary- to call out the intentional killing of innocent human life as always and everywhere evil, regardless if one is anatomically developing within the womb or a fully functioning adult outside it. The only sane 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 all others.

And 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 to think an argument is made to make believe death can be 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 or goods in exchange for it? Again, there is a simplicity on the far side of complexity.

Because abortion is 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 substance. 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 the law did not need to govern the relations between mother and offspring. Only love, it thought, can adequately rule that bond. Unfortunately, even in that most holy of sanctuaries-the very womb of a mother-love does not have the final say in a lawless society.

And this is where we are now: 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, but instead to enshrine the procedure doing it as a right protected in 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 as one Roman's anxiety about the growing strength of a neighboring empire across the Mediterranean. It was said, Cato's heated rhetoric were mere expressions of one war veteran against an enemy with whom he had fought against years prior...long time rivals back at it again. But perhaps Cato's railing against Carthage has more in common with the pro-lifer's railing against abortion than simply that the two had/have a single issue that dominated/dominates much of their political thinking. Perhaps that single issue is more similar than people think it is.

For to see Carthage from the eyes of Cato is to see it in a dimmer light, or better yet, a clearer darkness. For 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 his 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 did not want the flames of those pagan child 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- Cato thought the only defense Rome had against such darkness was to call for its complete and utter destruction.

Lest we too give off such a Carthaginian darkness to the rest of the world by the continuing sacrifice of our own unborn innocents, we must view the issue of abortion as the issue above all else 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...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.

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 his demonic diet.