There seem to be a lot of people who don’t like that Bush Administration has opened a legal pathway to torture. It seems to me that these people should therefore get behind the war on terror. After all, torture is only necessary if we have enemies that want to destroy us. Victory in the war on terror would eliminate the need for torture, and isn’t that what the anti-torture movement is all about? If torture-opposers are really serious about reducing or eliminating torture, then they are morally obligated to support policies that would reduce the number of enemies the United States has. To do otherwise would be the height of hypocrisy?
Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it?
But why is that any more ridiculous than the notion that opposition to abortion morally obligates one to support making contraceptives more available? The same logic applies — those opposed to a practice ought to support policies that would reduce its incidence, or else they’re hypocrites.
People might quiblle that supporting the war may backfire and produce more enemies. But I think it is also far from clear that increasing the availability of contraceptives would reduce the absolute number of unplanned pregnancies.
There seems to be a serious disconnect, even among those who claim to oppose abortion. A society that tolerates abortion is an unjust society, and changing that must be the first priority. It sure sounds nice to support “common ground” policies like increasing contraception (though pro-choicers are rarely criticized for failing to support crisis pregnancy centers run by anyone other than Planned Parenthood), but they will not change that blot from our soul, any more than winning the War on Terror will absolve us of our toleration of torture.
