One positive of Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid is it is providing repeated opportunities to evaluate the position most pro-"choice" Americans hold but would rather not contemplate. That is, they think abortion is wrong but should be legal anyway.
Neither the abortion industry nor MSM want America to think about it either. So historically, this conundrum has been rarely evaluated publicly.
Enter Rudy. Enter fodder. Washington Post writer Michael Gersen wrote an excellent column yesterday, in the end calling Rudy's position - and thus, the position of most abortion supporters - "incoherent." Gersen also correctly drew in a comparison to slavery....
There is, however, a question that comes before politics: Does Giuliani's position on abortion actually make sense?....His argument comes down to this: "I hate abortion," which is "morally wrong." But "people ultimately have to make that choice. If a woman chooses that, that's her choice, not mine. That's her morality, not mine."...
But the question naturally arises: Why does Giuliani "hate" abortion? No one feels moral outrage about an appendectomy. Clearly he is implying his support for the Catholic belief that an innocent life is being taken. And here the problems begin.
How can the violation of a fundamental human right be viewed as a private matter? Not everything that is viewed as immoral should be illegal; there are no compelling public reasons to restrict adultery, for example, or to outlaw sodomy. But when morality demands respect for the rights of a human being, those protections become a matter of social justice, not just personal or religious preference.
American history has tested these arguments. In debating the Missouri Compromise, Sen. Stephen Douglas said of slavery: "I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people of Missouri, but let them settle that matter for themselves." Abraham Lincoln differed: If faith and conscience tell us that enslaved Americans are men and brothers, then slavery must eventually be ended. Passing the 13th Amendment was not "imposing" our moral views on slaveholders; it was upholding the meaning of law and justice.Giuliani's doctrine of individual sovereignty goes much further than did Douglas, logically preventing even states from restricting abortion. And this raises a question about Giuliani's view of the law itself: Can it be a right to violate the basic rights of others?....
Giuliani has chosen an option that is not an option - a belief that unborn life deserves our sympathy but does not deserve rights or justice. This view is likely to dog him in the primary process, not only because it is pro-choice but because it is incoherent.
See also these recent posts:
"Rudy's unholy jihad"
"Hate the one you're with"
"Hate the one you're with II"
"Eye on abortion"
"What's wrong with this choice?"
[Hat tip: LifeNews.com]
Comments:
I agree with this article. I used to have views similar to Giuliani, and the realization that they were incoherent was one of the reasons I became pro-life.
Posted by: Lauren
at May 24, 2007 9:45 AMLook, if you hate abortion and are pro-choice which could result in the abortion of a baby, then you are for abortion. You can't be for something that results in another thing and then refuse to be described by the final result. It's just not honest. Like the article says, its "incoherent".
I like to deal in truth. I will stop calling pro-aborts, pro-aborts when they stop being for a choice that results in an abortion. It seems that those with a power-driven, abortion-as-cause agenda cloud most people's clear thinking abilities by injecting market driven words like "choice" and "right" (sounds real good) into the argument, but in the process direct people into compromising their own integrity as well. It makes me wonder if most pro-choice people have really thought this "pro-choice" cliche (and that's all it is) through or are just swimming with the flow, not realizing that the flow ends up in the cesspool.
You've got to hand it to the abortion industy's marketing genius, albeit, Hitler was a genius too. They have managed to twist the meanings of words with the direct result of a disconnect between what pro-choice really means - the probable death of an innocent baby in the womb; the destuction and termination of a God-intended and initiated human destiny, and what most people are repulsed by. Pro-death leadership has enabled a whole generation to become drunk with the notion of "choice" and "rights" (not unlike alcohol manufacturers and drug pushers) to believe that something that is so intrinsically evil as abortion is somehow just a "choice" or a "right" (this is the very definition of blasphemy, making something evil into good or vice versa).
It's a satanic ploy. How else did satan get a 1/3 of the angels to rebel against God? I mean they had it made and they left their heavenly abode. He must have been able to somehow appeal to their own selfish interests via a gross lie, i.e., "Why be subject to this God, come with me and I will show you how to become your own god, it's your choice and right". This sounds good on the surface but it's a lie, satan had no such power, he was simply driven by hatred and a desire to destroy all those around him. Go figure....the power of deception masked in light.
Why don't pro-aborts want to be called by what their stances could result in? Is it offensive to them? If so, why is it offensive? Tell me how being pro-choice is not pro-abortion. If pro-choicers are not pro-abortion, then what besides pro-choice do we call pro-aborts because for us the term pro-choice is so dishonest? For the purposes of debate, we need to be able to address those who say they are for the choice to be able to abort a baby in the womb but who, at the same time, say they hate abortion. It's like listening to an incoherent drunk who insists he can drive himself home but can't even find the keys in his front pocket. He is deceived by the chemicals that have infiltrated his brain cells not knowing he is deceived but exposed and outed by his actions and inabilty to function. Our desire is to protect such a one in their self-deceived state and others from such stupidity, however, if the law says it's ok to drive home drunk (Roe v. Wade), our hands are tied. We are forced to let such incoherent ones kill their own souls and the lives of their innocent and defenseless victims. Perhaps we should initiate a 12 step program for pro-aborts?
I am pro-life. You can call me anti-abortion, anti-death-choice, a homophobe, a bigot, a woman-hater, retard, turd, whatever you want (except don't you dare mention my daughter). It doesn't change the fact that I want to defend the life of every innocent, defenseless human being in the womb as well as the long term physical, emotional and spiritual well-being of the mother.
well said HisMan.
I'm surprised the washington post editors didn't pull this column....After all the MSM are willing accompliceses for the Pro-death propaganda.
some good news:
Oklahoma legis bans abortions in state hopitals.
Posted by: jasper at May 24, 2007 12:26 PM
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.