Questions for members of labor unions on abortion

For the last 13+ years as a professional firefighter, I have been privileged to belong to a labor union. In that time, I have served in various capacities including my current position as assistant V.P. I believe this membership in a labor union is a privilege for several reasons; early in my career I benefitted from the union’s, and specifically from my Local leadership’s dedication to ensuring that all represented employees are treated with justice. Also, my membership has afforded me the opportunity to express to those with opposing viewpoints and opinions, the moral and philosophical justification of the labor movement in regards to workers rights, and its’ contribution to a just society. To many, I appear to be enigmatic in my seemingly contradictory embracement of positions traditionally held and championed by opposing political parties with contradictory liberal and conservative philosophies.

I realize that for some, membership in a union is simply a necessity of employment with the only requirement being the payment of monthly dues. For others, it’s no different than membership in some social fraternal organization (e.g. the “Elks”, “Eagles”, or “American Legion”). For many it is seen as an opportunity to have a voice in the workplace and in the local, state, and national political discourse. For me it’s all of those things, and something much more.

Before I explain, let me ask:

Do you support the labor movement? Do you promote the cause of workers receiving a livable wage? Do you believe that the hours of work required of laborers should be limited by contract rules and statutes that include mandatory overtime pay? Should employers be responsible for providing a workplace free of unnecessary health risks and disparity in the treatment of workers based on their race, creed, skin color, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation?

Are your answers to those questions just simply your opinion? Is there no right or wrong answer? Is your “yes” simply because supporting and promoting those causes puts money into your pocket, improves your economic and social condition, and gives you power? Does it come down to the simple idea of “Might makes Right” born of the 18th century “Will to Power” philosophers that inspired Marxism and National Socialism? If supporters of "organized labor's" issues happen to be in power because they win a popular election does that establish or prove the truth of those positions regarding workers (and anyone else’s) rights? Is there no right or wrong but only the powerful and the powerless?

I think not. I believe that the cause for worker’s rights is worthy of being supported because they are based on an objective moral truth. That is; all people have the right to be treated with dignity, respect, and justice simply due to the fact that they are human persons. Collectively; workers rights, minority rights, religious rights, freedom of speech, freedom of self determination… are basic human rights issues. Those who are powerless are still entitled to those rights (such as the people in Darfur) and when deprived of them, it is recognized as a human rights violation.

To deprive someone of these rights is an injustice. All injustices are wrong. However, some injustices have more grave consequence on the victim than others do. Therefore it can be said that all injustices are equally wrong, but all wrongs are not equally unjust. For Example; it is rightly recognized by our judicial system that stealing a pack of gum is an injustice and is therefore against the law (a misdemeanor). Embezzling someone’s pension is also stealing, but is a worse injustice and therefore the consequences of breaking that law are greater (a felony with prison time).

As you readily see, the more grave the consequence of a wrong, the worse the injustice that has been committed. The Founding Father’s of our country rightly recognized that we have "...certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...” arranged in that order out of right reason not coincidence. To pursue happiness you must be free, to be free (have liberty) you must first be alive! To be alive is the foundation of all these rights because we're talking about a human person who is alive.

To work for protecting the rights of people in regards to workers justice is good. But, it is only good as long as you are not denying them a superior right. You can't promote a grave injustice while protecting a hierarchically inferior issue of social justice. To do so opposes the integration of human rights into our society, thus disintegrating human rights.

The protection of innocent human life, from conception to natural death, must be promoted by organized labor and all interested in a civil society. This encompasses the issues of abortion, destructive embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and euthanasia (“death with dignity”). To promote other human rights issues at the expense of, or while simultaneously attacking a hierarchically superior right, (specifically the right to life upon which all other human rights are contingent), is an abomination of justice.

Every day approximately 3,200 (ref. CDC 2008 statistics) unborn infants lives’ are ended through procured abortions in the United States. It is the single most important human rights issue of our time, and I daresay, of all time. We must protect and promote the rights of workers to fair wages, reasonable hours, and healthy working conditions. Just not at the expense of innocent people’s lives.

The endorsement of candidates for political office who defend this human rights violation is not warranted. Especially from a union that represents a profession dedicated to protecting people's lives.