When we walk the narrow road of truth, it is easy to see the ditch on the left and forget the ditch on the right. The comment we are analyzing is a perfect example of this political tunnel vision. The author looks at the "Republican" side -- characterized here as a legalistic force that mandates birth but offers no sustenance -- and he recoils. He is right to recoil. A law that commands life without providing the conditions for life is a hollow gong. It is the law of the Pharisee who ties up heavy burdens and lays them on men’s shoulders, but will not lift a finger to move them.

But notice where the author runs for safety. He runs to "public service," by which he implies the mechanism of the State, to manage these "unwanted babies." He assumes that if we do not have the cold law of the Right, we must have the bureaucratic management of the Left.

This is the great tragedy of our age: we are forced to choose between a Law without Love and a Charity without Soul.

The Scandal of the Pious

Let us be honest about the failure the critic identifies. It is a scandal when Christians, who claim to worship the God of the poor, seem more concerned with the penal code than the beatitudes. If we fight for the child in the womb but sneer at the mother on welfare, we have fractured the Gospel. We have turned the "Culture of Life" into a mere political platform.

This "cold legalism" treats the moral life as a checklist. "I voted against abortion, therefore I am righteous." It ignores the messy, demanding reality of solidarity. It forgets that if a child is born into poverty, his hunger is my hunger. His lack of education is my shame. To walk away is to act like Cain: "Am I my brother's keeper?"

The Trap of the "Unwanted"

However, while the critic sees the hypocrisy, his proposed solution reveals a different kind of blindness. He speaks of "unwanted babies" and the crime rate. He views the child through the lens of utility. To him, the child is a potential problem that needs to be solved by "public service."

If the Republican error is to ignore the child after birth, the secular error is to view the child as a statistic to be managed. The critic suggests that if the State provided enough services, these "unwanted" humans wouldn't become criminals. This is a subtle form of materialism. It assumes that crime is simply the result of a lack of funding, and that virtue can be bought with a tax credit.

But the human heart is not a vending machine. You cannot input "public service" and output "good citizen." A child does not need a program; he needs a father. He does not need a case number; he needs a community. When we hand the work of charity over entirely to the State, we sanitize the suffering. We pay the government to love our neighbor for us, so we can remain undisturbed in our private lives.

The Third Way: A Civilization of Love

So, am I agreeing with the critic? Yes, in his grief. No, in his hope.

He hopes in the State. I hope in the Church -- not the institution of clerics alone, but the living body of believers. The answer to the "unwanted baby" is not a government check that keeps him alive but alone. The answer is a family that adopts him. The answer is a parish that supports the mother so she does not feel "unwanted" herself.

This is not a utopian dream. It is the history of the West. Hospitals, orphanages, and schools were not invented by the Department of Health and Human Services; they were invented by religious orders who saw Christ in the distressing disguise of the poor. They did not wait for a vote; they acted on a virtue.

We must reject the false choice between the "cold legalist" who abandons the child and the "social engineer" who manages the child. We must choose the difficult, costly path of personal love. We must build a society where the law protects life, yes -- but where our lives are poured out to sustain it.