It is interesting to me that people can hold what appear to be such inconsistent beliefs. Consider the issue of abortion. Those who oppose abortion in all cases (or almost all) often say they do so because a fetus is a person, and it is always wrong to kill an innocent person. Thus, the consideration that an innocent person might be born severely disabled and consequently impose a lifetime of burden upon themselves and their parents does not give us permission to abort the fetus. There is no reason they say, or almost none, that gives us this permission. Yet some of the same people believe there are good reasons for permitting the killing of thousands of innocent people in Gaza, many of them innocent children, some of them just born, some in the bodies of pregnant women.

How can these two beliefs be held simultaneously? Is there some hidden reason at play here that gives permission for the killing in Gaza but that would be insufficient to permit abortion? What is/are the reason/s for the killing in Gaza: retaliation for the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas, self-defense, defense of property, a lack of innocence on the side of the Gazans? Surely, at least the babies and the very young are innocent. Is the excuse self-defense? That may have excused some initial response, but can it excuse the ongoing slaughter?

In any case, once the initial attack had been repulsed, nothing else can be considered actual self-defense; it is preemptive killing due to fear of future attacks. Isn’t it clear that any reason given for permitting the killing of the innocents in Gaza is weaker than many of the reasons that can be given for permitting a woman to decide on an abortion? And, moreover, the standing of the innocents in Gaza as persons who should never be killed without a very good reason seems much clearer than the standing of a fetus. If the reason for the standing of the fetus in a person’s mind is their God-given rights, then don’t the innocents in Gaza have the same rights? And, without the support of religious grounds, certainly the standing of a collection of cells, yet to be conscious and yet to be a fully functioning person is more questionable that those of an already born person.

Personally, I can accept a number of reasons as grounds for an abortion but find it beyond my imagination to conceive of any reasons as acceptable grounds for the continuation or the extent of the killing of the innocents in Gaza. However, to be clear, my primary interest is not in convincing anyone of any position with regard to either issue. My interest is roused by the question I asked at the beginning, “How is it rationally possible to believe in the prohibition of abortion and at the same time believe in the permissibility of the killing in Gaza. I’d be happy to read or hear any cogent response.

John Guenther lives in Greenfield.