American troops fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, among other battlefields, were described as being, "people on the front lines," and "people being placed in harm's way." The context? An inventory of those who would be affected by a federal government shutdown.
"People on the front lines," and "Being placed in harm's way" have bothered me long before this morning's newscast. It has seemed to me to be an unnecessary expression of bravado.
In no way do I mean to belittle what people in military service endure. I have listened intently to first-hand accounts, and I have viewed moving photographs of the Korean War. But, for now, I must dispense with a worthy exploration of the singular military meaning of these phrases.
"People being placed in harm's way" and "people on the front line" should be considered in the context of women, and children, primarily, who seek out the protection of domestic abuse shelters.
I live in the State of Minnesota. Like many other states in the United States, Minnesota faces a huge deficit that needs to be reconciled. I make no claim of being an expert in budgets, and finances.
Yet, I cannot reconcile, morally or ethically, the comment of one state legislator, who suggested cutting state funding for domestic abuse shelters.
Moral outrage is my response to the justification he presented. He suggested that existing shelters were not at full capacity.
Full capacity may be a central function of productivity in the business world. Yet, how can we as a society possibly quantify such life-or-death human need? What does it say of our society, if our domestic abuse shelters are at full capacity?
We speak of putting our lives on the line, people being on the front line, and people put in harm's way.
Don't individuals who need domestic abuse shelters fit into the definitions of these three phrases? If not, aren't they victimized twice due to no action of their own?
No comments:
Post a Comment