JT letter to the editor writer Teresa Murphy-Dickert asks "What's the difference between aborting a fetus and blowing up a child in a U.S. bombing raid?" and "why is aborting a child in our country worse than killing innocent children in a different country?"
Answering her own question, Murphy-Dickert writes "I think it is because those who believe abortion is worse don't have to see those murdered children and torn bodies of women on the other side of the world. Since it is not staring us in the face every day, it's easy to decide that "being against abortion" is more important than being against an inhumane war."
I can't make heads or tails of M-D's answer to her question. Clearly she is opposed to the deaths of innocents in war, but is she also opposed to abortions? And is evidence of the 30 million or so aborted fetuses "staring us in the face every day" or have we sanitized abortion victims just as we have sanitized the war?
I would answer M-D's question quite differently. The difference between an abortion death and the death of an innocent in war is intent. With abortion, the intent to end life is purposeful. With an errant bomb, it is accidental. The moral difference is significant.
Of course if you have lost your wife and child to an errant bomb, the moral distinction may seem irrelevent. The effect is the same. You no longer have a wife and child.
Even so, we must be able to recognize moral distinctions in order to function properly as a society. Or should we make no distinctions between a murderer and a surgeon who's patient dies in surgery?