Pro-life

I am tempted to go all Mark Shea “on the thing that use to be conservatism”.

I started noticing a bunch of links to a video of Anderson Cooper taking on Debbie Wasserman Schultz and some claims towards Gov. Romney. There was a lot of excitement over Anderson Cooper disputing her.

Finally seeing the video myself I can almost weep. I  wish that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was right in her allegations. The short summary is that she was claiming that it was Romney who was driving the language on abortion in the GOP plank. That despite Romney’s abortion exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother that he was the force behind the plank which does not mention such exceptions.

How conservatives can see this video as a victory of any kind I just don’t see.

“Debbie Wasserman Schultz is lying about the fact that our candidate doesn’t support intrinsic evils when in fact he does! It is so much worse for her to lie about it than for our candidate to support intrinsic evils. Yeah team.”

The other day I had posted on progressive Catholics straining gnats while swallowing camels, and the same is true about those who call themselves pro-life while swallowing the camels of exceptions to direct abortion.

On the Hugh Hewitt show the other day one of the callers called in quite upset about Romney’s exceptions for abortion.  Mr. Hewitt waived this aside as a ‘prudential decision” since the country is not onboard with anti-abortion stance that excludes these exceptions. I have heard others defend these exceptions “as a step in the right direction.”  First off it certainly is a prudential question on the part of voters to limit evil to choose one candidate over the other because there stance is less evil.  For Gov. Romney is is not a prudential decision but formal cooperation with evil.  The support of murdering the innocent because of the circumstances they are conceived in come down ultimately to the same arguments pro-abortion advocates use.   Once circumstances are part of the equation the exception grows.  Just like how “life of the mother” has been broadened way beyond cases involving double effect.  Once you allow for exceptions to direct abortion you undercut the defense of life and weaken the intellectual arguments behind it.

That we keep having presidential nominees who are either full pro-abortion or pro-abortion by exceptions is such a tragedy.  The so-called pro-life GOP since Roe v. Wade keep nominating people who are at odds with the plank and we are suppose to shut up and put up with it because they are not nearly as pro-abortion as the other guy.  Something has to change within the pro-life community and to shut down pro-abortion in some cases politicians in the primary process.  Those that support intrinsic evils of any form simply should not be supported, yet the pro-life movement has provided cover for these candidates.  We let things go until the nomination is made and then reason we have no other choice but to pick a lesser evil.  We have become so use to compromising on this for an election that we have forgotten to revolt during the initial process.

So how do we get ourselves out of this rut?  First off while more and more Americans are calling themselves pro-life it is often not a pro-life conviction with a morally consistent understanding. No exception for rape and incest seem a hard teaching and one that has been shied away from in the public square.  This view is branded as extremist and refuting this has not been much of a priority.  When Gov. Romney was on EWTN with Raymond Arroyo there was no question about Romney’s support of intrinsic evil for supporting the murder for those condemned for the crime of their father.  A rather softball interview that allowed punch-card answers by the governor.  The pro-life question was answered by “I will appoint a strict constructionist”  with the robotic tone of somebody programmed to say the same thing over again in response to input A.

I would certainly like to be charitable in accepting the Gov. Romney did have some form of conversion towards the pro-life cause that wasn’t just politically motivated.  Living though in Florida where we had Charlie Crist who was pro-abortion, than announced he was pro-life before his Governor run, and now back to pro-abortion and recently endorsing President Obama.  It makes it harder to believe a pro-life conversion when he supports IVF and has advocated for unlimited IVF insurance.  He would allow for the use of experimentation with embryos resulting from IVF.  This is another area where the pro-life cause is severely weakened and the amount of persons killed due to IVF is an area hardly mentioned as it is usually seen as a Catholic thing instead of something foundational to the pro-life movement.  Gov. Romney will likely not touch the subject since some of his own grandchildren are the result of IVF.  So even if he had some pro-life conversion he can not be called pro-life. St. Teresa wrote “You cannot be half a saint; you must be a whole saint or no saint at all.” You can’t be half a pro-lifer either. To the extent you support direct abortion you are not pro-life.  As long as we pretend otherwise we are fooling ourselves.

Though I feel quite the hypocrite writing in such terms myself.  President Obama must be defeated.  I almost wish that I lived in some heavily Democratic state where I could feel satisfied in voting for a Don Quixote candidate and I could tilt at the voting booth.  I didn’t vote in the primaries because there was no candidate I could endorse with my vote. I was drawn towards Sen Santorum but his “me too on torture” eliminated that.  Yet here I am contemplating pulling the lever for Romney on election day not for fooling myself about Gov. Romney being an ardent pro-lifer, but in knowing the evil of the Obama administration in its ardent attacks on life and on religious freedom. But I can’t be happy about such a choice and I won’t be jumping up and down with a Romney win like “Yeah I limited evil!”

(CBS News) MANCHESTER, N.H. – Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan’s strong views on abortion took a back seat to his new boss’s view in a Romney-Ryan campaign response to a Missouri Senate candidate’s controversial remarks about rape and abortion.

The statement on behalf of Ryan and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney said the pair would “not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”

Specifically Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg wrote:

“Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape,”

One of the hopes of some pro-lifers was that the Ryan pick would help firm up Gov. Romney in regards to the pro-life cause. As an optimistic-pessimist I hoped that was true, but wouldn’t have been surprised if it was just some pro-life veneer lacquered onto Gov. Romney.

So I would guess if Ryan were asked about this personally we would get some version of “I’m personally opposed to abortion in the case of rape but …” statement. Plus what the hell does “would not oppose” mean? If the Supreme Court actually overturned Roe does it mean he would sign legislation allowing abortion in the case of rape? Though with politicians the weaselly words mean nothing other than dodging an issue for political expediency.

Though this has always been a problem with those who call themselves pro-life. If somebody said they were against racism except for the case of Inuits, would anybody say they were not racist? If somebodies says they are pro-life and then say except in the case of rape or incest they have become pro-life with exceptions as if you could get waivers for pro-life status. The same goes for people who say they are pro-life and have no problems with IVF. I guess this is American Exceptionalism where exceptions are made that are totally contrary to what they propose to be.

This is not a case of brandishing “I am more pro-life than thou”, but a complaint against a definition of pro-life that excludes persons. Direct abortion is always intrinsically evil, yes even during political campaigns. Direct abortion always kills an innocent person. The distinction of direct abortion is used because of the cases where double-effect would apply in moral theology which as the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia summarizes:

The principle of double effect in the Church’s moral tradition teaches that one may perform a good action even if it is foreseen that a bad effect will arise only if four conditions are met: 1) The act itself must be good. 2) The only thing that one can intend is the good act, not the foreseen but unintended bad effect. 3) The good effect cannot arise from the bad effect; otherwise, one would do evil to achieve good. 4) The unintended but foreseen bad effect cannot be disproportionate to the good being performed.

I find Rep. Ryan joining along with this just plain cowardly. That political heat because of idiotic and a bit insane comments by Representative Todd Akin invoke not a teaching moment, but a runaway moment. The issue of abortion and rape is highly emotionally charged and I can understand on an emotional level why so many how call themselves pro-life do this. When I became a “pro-life” atheist I also made the same exception and it was only when I became Catholic that I first heard explained a defense against these exceptions. Most Americans would be totally against affixing the crime of a father to a child, yet in the case of rape they would have the child killed and the rapist just sent to prison for an average of time served as 5.4 years. We very naturalize sympathize with the victim of this horrendous crime, but adding another victim does not diminish the crime. Rep. Ryan has been able to articulate the faith in the past despite political pressure and the sound bite mentality, that he choose not to stand up for the truth demonstrates why there are so few martyrs who were also politicians. Now they can’t even weather a political storm without buckling.

What they end up doing is undermining the pro-life cause. When you make exceptions based on circumstances then pretty much you are saying “all life is precious’ just not in so-and-so circumstance. The integrity of the pro-life stance is gutted for emotional appeals instead of clearly explaining the truth. Sure a lot of people don’t want to hear the truth, but they will never hear it if we keep making excuses for political expediency. Instead we will only hear arguments about why Romney is more pro-life than Obama. Well if you want to play moral limbo than yeah Obama can dance under a very low moral bar. If somebody said they were less for genocide than their opponent we would laugh at such a ridiculous statement. Yet we seem to swallow that argument every election and not learning the lesson in the next candidate go-around. Sure I totally understand incrementalism and political realism. Unfortunately the child who is slaughtered in the womb will not live long enough for such nuances.

WASHINGTON (AP) – The House on Thursday fell short in an effort to ban abortions based on the sex of the fetus as Republicans and Democrats made an election-year appeal for women’s votes.
The legislation would have made it a federal crime to perform or force a woman to undergo a sex-based abortion, a practice most common in some Asian countries where families wanting sons abort female fetuses.

It was a rare social issue to reach the House floor in a year when the economy has dominated the political conversation, and Republicans, besieged by Democratic claims that they are waging a war on women, struck back by trying to depict the vote as a women’s rights issue.

“It is violence against women,” said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., of abortions of female fetuses. “This is the real war on women.”

The White House, most Democrats, abortion rights groups and some Asian-American organizations opposed the bill, saying it could lead to racial profiling of Asian-American women and subject doctors who do not report suspected sex-selection abortions to criminal charges.

Because there is no worse sin than racial-profiling. Killing a child because they are the wrong sex is acceptable just as long as there is no possibility of racial-profiling. Good thing our culture has its head screwed on right and all the priorities correct.

“The administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision,” White House spokeswoman Jamie Smith said in a statement. “The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

Ah, so they have seen the light in regards to hate crime laws now also. Oh wait you can prosecute people on motive in regards to race, but not in regards to gender-based abortion. Yeah totally consistent. Though on a practical level such a law would have been difficult to enforce.

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House’s No. 2 Democrat, said he thought the bill was introduced because “somebody decided politically that this was a difficult place to put people in.”

No doubt this is certainly true to some extent, but that is because if you have an inconsistent opinion it is really annoying to have the inconsistencies shown to light.

This is an area where even abortion supporters become uncomfortable. Then Sen. Clinton who ironically called the Partial Birth Abortion Ban a “slippery slope” has spoken out against Gender-based abortion before.

Clinton: “…Obviously, there’s work to be done in both India and China, because the infanticide rate of girl babies is still overwhelmingly high, and unfortunately with technology, parents are able to use sonograms to determine the sex of a baby, and to abort girl children simply because they’d rather have a boy.” (Hat tip: Thomas Peters)

Well it is not just India and China since it happens here also (but to a much lesser degree). The designer family is more and more of a mindset where ideally you have one of each – a kind of matched set. Two of the same kind spoil it and having three children or more is of course destructive to the environment.

The inconsistencies of the abortion supporters queasiness with this form of abortion selection is partly a real moral queasiness and the discomfiture of knowing that they can’t justify it based on their pro-abortion viewpoint.

• If’s it only tissue mass, a result of conception, or any of the other obscuring phrases. Then it does not matter if the chromosomes are XX or XY.
• If the women has total autonomy over her body, than she also has total autonomy to make a decision regardless of the reasons or motivations.
• If it really is not a human being until born, than the gender of the fetus is also a non-issue. It is not like it is a “real” human female or male.
• If viability is the determination to accept abortion, chromosomes don’t affect this viability.
• If the ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights, than gender-based abortion is also a civil right.
• If personhood begins at birth as abortion-advocates proclaim, then once again what is the big deal?
• Some have argues that abortion reduces crime. So aborting male-children helps the crime rate since males commit most of the crimes.
• If women can choose an abortion for financial reasons such as financial inconvenience than if it is true girls cost more to raise than boys – choosing to kill a girl is perfectly acceptable.

Now you can almost admire the President for his evil consistency. I only wish we could have a President as pro-life as President Obama is pro-abortion. That might be difficult to do for even a very pro-life candidate. When it comes to abortion the President will let nothing get in his way including the First Amendment.

(article)

MIAMI, FLORIDA, May 17, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney scheduled a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser at the home of Phil Frost, the executive of the company that makes the Morning After Pill, on Wednesday night. Plan B One-Step is produced by Teva Pharmaceuticals, Frost’s company.

The pharmaceutical executive’s residence was one of several stops scheduled to increase Romney’s war chest during a two-day swing through Florida.

“It’s a huge disappointment,” Brian Camenker, director of the Massachusetts-based pro-family organization MassResistance told LifeSiteNews.com. “You wouldn’t see someone who was really pro-life doing a fundraiser with somebody who helped the abortion industry.”

Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote.org, didn’t seem troubled by the fundraiser saying, “What matters is whether a President Romney will end all taxpayer support for abortion-inducing drugs, repeal unconstitutional mandates that force private institutions to cover such drugs, and whether he will make progress in building a culture of life.” Lifesite News

Brian Burch illustrates why we get such crappy candidates. While the possibility of one candidate contributing more to the common good than the other certainly has moral weight – it does not mean putting blinders on when something seriously problematic happens. You can’t hold a candidate’s feet to the fire if you don’t even light the match. The “What matters is …” can be and has been used to justify just about anything. The Democratic Party did not start as the Party of Death and while many Democrats might have been reticent about the parties increasing pro-abortion fever, no doubt many explained it away with a “What matters is {insert favorite cause}.”

The idea that since Romney will probably do the right thing so we should ignore when he does the totally wrong thing is a really bad idea. Mitt “Believe me I am pro-life now” Romney does not exactly build credibility by having a fundraiser with Phil Frost. The ends justify the gaffe. Though this is more than just a gaffe. Giving him a free pass on this just means you better keep a pocketful of passes since you are going to need them later.

The Life of Julia is certainly one of the strangest and creepiest campaign gimmicks as you go through the life of a fictional person as they enjoy all the fabled promises of President Obama. It is quite ripe for parodying as evident via many parodies of it. So I will just pile on.