are the babies killed by abortion in America more important than the people starving in Darfur just because there are more of them? how can we say to a refugee camp in Sudan/Uganda or anywhere else for that matter that we don't have the time to think/pray/advocate/etc for them because more people are dying in our own country? i don't think, when it comes to human crises, that it is right to set priorities because we aren't talking about which job needs done first, we aren't talking about which speck/plank to take out of our eyes first, we are talking about which lives to save first. then they say, "there is nothing we can do about Darfur or any other tragedy in a foreign country"--you'd be surprised, oh so surprised what Americans are motivated to do when their economic interests are in danger. As Lieutenant General Romeo Dallaire recorded in his book Shake Hands With The Devil:
Engraved still in my brain is the judgment of a small group of bureaucrats who came to "assess" the situation in the first weeks of the genocide (Rwanda): "We will recommend to our government not to intervene as the risks are high and all that is here are humans".Had the worry been oil....
no, I'm convinced that a nation that said "never again" to Hitler, Pol Pot, and several others could do something to help.
does this mean that i think everyone should ignore abortion and consider it not a problem...not in your life. like i said before, injustices involving loss of life are equally important.
but how can we take Sudan's president to the International Criminal Court if we legalize abortion which kills innocent unborn babies? is this not hypocrisy? if it is, is it right to turn one's back upon starving people so that we can refrain from hypocrisy? Again, these are lives we are talking about, not petty sins.
