Hershel Walker knocked it out of the park on Friday night at the fights in Savannah. What a great debate between him and Georgia’s senator Warnock.
Interestingly enough, and tragically enough, this past week in Savannah’s local news which has made the national news, a child, pictured above, went missing from his home. A couple of days ago, law enforcement has declared they believe the child is dead and has named his mother as the chief suspect.
This mother followed the Democrat Party’s ideology about the manslaughter, infanticide and murder of innocent children based upon a mother’s right to choose to kill their child with the help of hitmen, the doctors she might or might not consult.
Hershel Walker knocked Warnock out with one punch when Warnock said that in a hospital room a woman with her doctor should be the only ones in the room when deciding to kill a child.
Walker came back with the knock out punch or the touch down, to mix metaphors, when he said there is one other person in that room and it is the baby!
If you follow Senator Warnock’s ideology about government not being involved in her decision to slaughter her child, then certainly he is on board about law enforcement not being involved in determining if a mother killed her toddler in Savannah; the choice to kill her child is made between her and anyone else she chooses to consult—keep law enforcement out of it! That is what the Democrat Party, by extension of their logic about choice, is advocating!
Warnock and Walker both have skeletons in their closets, some are lies told about them, others aren’t.
But as I was told in the seminary in 1976 by a Scripture Scholar, “the Church may be a whore, but she’s still your mother”; Walker may be duplicitous about life, but he can still speak the truth and he did so Friday night! God bless America!
42 comments:
Walker's performance was pitiful, truly pitiful. He does not have the competence to be a United States Senator.
He does, however, have a dry mist spray that will cure Covid. “You know, right now I have something that can bring you into a building that would clean you from COVID as you walk through this dry mist. As you walk through the door it will kill any COVID on your body. EPA-, FDA- approved. When you leave the building it will kill the virus.” (Herschel Walker, Glenn Beck podcast, summer 2020)
Be that as it may, he won the debate, overall, and scored a touchdown on the “baby in the room.” I prefer his mist for covid, over the democrats’ fascist style encouragement of killing children and keeping government and law enforcement out of it.
If you get ill in my rectory and you are incompetent to make decisions, since you are in my rectory, I won’t involve anyone else in my decision to let you starve to death and die, after all, my rectory, my choice!
"Be that as it may" translates into "I will ignore Walker's blatant lies about 1) being high school valedictorian (he wasn't), 2) graduating from college (he didn't), 3) having a dry mist spray that kills covid (it doesn't exist), 4) that he worked with police (never happened), that he established a charity for veterans (it was for-profit and he made money while mistreating veterans), 5) that his company had 800 employees (nowhere near that), 6) his multiple children by multiple women (yep, he's got 'em), etc etc
By the way, you don't have a rectory. And of course you prefer his mist, since like many of your ideas, it exists only in your mind.
Oh no, Father. Walker lost. We know this because the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Savannah Morning News told us so and they are never wrong. Your diehard socialist priest told you so and he is never wrong. The local broadcast media says so and they are never wrong. Of course they will also never show the clips of Walker's "knockout" remarks either.
Raphael Warnock, the Pro-Abort "Minister" won because he's the right kind of black man for our "unprejudiced" and "unbigoted" BLM-owned liberals to love. Herschel, who is not a trained speaker, who grew up poor, speaks in what we call "Black English". Now, if he was running as a Democrat against a Republican, that would not matter at all, but since he is running against the annointed darling of this state's (and a lot of out of state money's) left, he is "truly pitiful." If any Republican opponent would point out what a grammatically-challenged performance the Democratic opponent gave (have you ever listened to the pathetic ramblings of Maxine Waters?) the Republican would be a "racist" for noticing such errors of speech. It doesn't matter that the CONTENT of his responses humiliated his opponent. All that matters is that he talks like a poor black boy and that's "truly pitiful".
Actually, the naked double-standard of our media-controlled politics is truly pitiful. The Democrat party is racist, condescending, bigotry covered with a big sheet that reads, "VIRTUOUS".
In the hierarchy of truths, FRMJK, the murder of anyone to include children, born or not, should be prosecuted by the government, ie, law enforcement. In the case of the Savannah child, the FBI is involved. Do you agree with your party affiliation and what Senator Warnock articulated that government and its law enforcement affiliates should not be involved and that thinkers kinds of murders should be legal and left to the mother to decide who of their children will live or be murdered?
These kinds of murders
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - I believe that abortion is wrong and should not be legal. What the "prosecution" of those responsible for performing/participating in abortion - mothers, doctors, nurses, technicians, Uber/Lyft/Taxi drivers, fathers of the children - should look like is a question we are going to be struggling with for a long time.
The "hierarchy of truths" is a high-sounding concept, but when a voter is asked to choose between two candidates - one he concludes is competent and up to the task of being a United States Senator, and one who, he concludes, is in no way prepared to deal with the work of being a U.S. Senator, that concept isn't in play.
Seamus - Needing to determine who "won" the debate and who "lost" the debate is an unfortunate thing, one that distorts the purpose of the "debates" we hold these days. I didn't say Warnock "won," since I think that's an essentially meaningless idea. It's something you can worry about, but it is of no concern to me.
Can either of you tell me where I can buy a can of Walker's magic dry mist spray? It would be easier than getting my 4th booster...
"The debate revealed that Walker doesn't know how health care, the federal minimum wage, or insulin works. It would be one thing if he just had bad policies, but he literally doesn’t know how basic functions of our society work." - Matt McDermott
A senate candidate who says, "At one time, science said man came from apes, did it not? That's what's interesting, though. If that is true, why are there still apes? Think about it."
(Herschel Walker, 13 March 2022) reveals that he knows little or nothing about science in general are Darwinian evolution in particular.
Still looking for that dry mist spray.......
I can top that stupidity! Warnick does not believe children are human or that government law enforcement should investigate or prosecute the murder of children. I pick Walker for being smarter than that!
Living in a time period when the basic liberties of our Constitution are ignored and unprotected by a weaponized and politicized Justice Department and FBI, when perversion and baby-killing are invoked as "civil rights", when racism becomes public policy and our energy needs are choked off by the cult of earth worship, I am far more concerned about electing people who get the basics. Whether or not a candidate understands the nuances of evolution is pretty low on my list.
That humans and apes, having evolved from a common ancestor, both still exist is not a "nuance" of Darwinian evolution. It is a fundamental concept.
Add to that Walker's error in saying, "...science said man came from apes...", something science never said, and you are left with the impression that he simply makes things up as he goes along.
Yes, Warnoch the same. Babies are not humans, he does not say from what they evolved. Also, just as he is a science denier about what makes a human a person, the same is true about his views on gender which completely deny science, biology, chemistry, physiology as well as DNA evidence.
Fr K,
You would not vote the way you do if you believed abortion was wrong and should not be legal. Go to confession for lying because in this election cycle that’s all your Party has and they are running hard on it. You and Warnock are birds of a feather
Fr. ALLAN McDonald, well that would be your take on why Warnock has chosen his stand. I think you are wrong and, therefore, do not agree. The Church recognizes the right of each voter, even those who reason wrongly, to make their own choices when voting, you making yours and I making mine.
Father Kavanaugh
Add to that Walker's error in saying, "...science said man came from apes...", something science never said...
You are right that science never said the above. This bring something else to mind though. When it comes to the origin of life, ape or otherwise,science is still left with a conundrum.
Far enough back in time the earth, to quote scripture, was " without form and void". Although one could argue how in any way this description corresponds to what the earth was actually like, we know that it was comprised only of inert matter and was without life in any shape or form.
How did living, reproducing organisms develop out of the barren and listless material making up this lifeless primordial world? For the man without faith it is a mystery yet to be answered. For the man who has faith in a Creator God,who fashioned and brought all that exists out of nothing, it is not a problem.
Fr K,
You obviously employ wrong reasoning when voting. No Catholic priest should be voting for the party of infanticide. There is NO proportionate reason to vote for Dems who abandoned the working class decades ago and the only folks who seem to get rich when they hold power are Dem politicians like the Pelosi's, Clinton's , Obama's and Biden's. None of them have produced anything of value, they just sell influence. Harry Truman would call them crooks.
I take my guidance from the Church not from those who make up their own rules. The Church's guidance says that there may well be reasons, proportionate reasons, to vote for a candidate in spite of his/her position on abortion. Given that guidance, the assertions of those who reject what the Church says have no merit.
George - I am a theistic evolutionist. I believe that God has created (and creates) everything, but Scripture does not tell the manner by which this was accomplished.
fr k
As a citizen you vote as you please.
On the other hand, as a Catholic priest you owe your God (unless your god is pro-abortion) obedience. Since our God in the Catholic religion is definitely pro-life your choices in this matter are limited. Why your Bishop tolerates a scandalous character as one of his priests is a puzzle to me. But he may not know about this deviant behavior of yours otherwise he would have probably fired you a long time ago.
You do not need to reply to this comment. I already heard the weasel excuse about the seamless garment. The garment is crimson red, made so by the blood of millions of aborted babies.
TJM:
I notice that you did not respond to a question I posed on another thread, so I repeat the relevant part on this thread:
Perhaps it would advance the conversation if we put you (and some others) to the question regarding the elephant in the room:
Is it your position that victory by the MAGA movement will not mean entrenched one-party minority rule, lack of political accountability, and disrespect for the rule of law (i.e., an illiberal democracy)?
Or is it your position that, even if victory by MAGA does mean this, it is acceptable to you if it also means achieving perceived gains on abortion and various other political, economic, and cultural issues you care about?
I think you know where I stand. I would like to know where you stand.
Once we are clear on this, we should be in a better position to explore the reasons/justifications for holding our respective views.
Father McDonald:
Is it really your position that those supporting a legal right to abortion would also support the murder of a toddler, as this mother is alleged to have committed, and would not seek to logically distinguish abortion of the unborn from murder of a toddler already born?
If this really is your position, can you please identify a supporter of a legal right to abortion who has also voiced support for murdering toddlers?
I ask because I am quite sure that if you suggested to those supporting a legal right to abortion that they also support the murder of toddlers, or that the logic of their position on abortion means that they must also be committed to the murder of toddlers, they would vigorously disagree.
Perhaps I am wrong about their reaction, but if I am right about it, then either they are incorrect in thinking that the two situations are logically distinguishable, or you are incorrect to suggest that they are not.
I ask these questions because it is important to think clearly about the issue of abortion and the different views people have about it if we want to be persuasive in our conversations with others.
I just read the following two pieces on the Jewish website Forward:
https://forward.com/fast-forward/520780/abortion-holocaust-georgia-republican-compares/?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ForwardingtheNews_Tayla_5257041
https://forward.com/fast-forward/512727/holocaust-doesnt-even-compare-to-abortion-deaths-says-gop-nominee-for-illinois-governor/
Just as I predicted on an earlier thread, likening abortion to the Holocaust will not go over well with many (most?) of our Jewish neighbors. It is counterproductive, just as equating abortion to murdering toddlers is counterproductive. Such inflammatory rhetoric will change not one mind or heart but will only cause those hearing it to shut down, become deaf to what we might have to say, including reasonable arguments we might try to make, and to double down on their position supporting a legal right to abortion.
Isn't there a better and more effective way to talk with others about abortion as we seek to persuade them and win their hearts and minds?
Sophia here: Greetings Mark. I totally agree with you that “ it is important to think clearly about the issue of abortion”. I hope this is clear enough and therefore helpful! If we queried supporters of a mother’s right to “ hire a hit man” - I’m just using Pope Francis’ words here, for which I frequently thank him from the bottom of my heart- to kill her pre-born child, at which gestational age they would draw the line, we would get a variety of answers. Not all would say, up to 9 months gestation when she could have the hit man -abortionist M.D.- deliver her baby’s head and ram a pair of scissors into the base of her baby’s skull to kill it, then deliver the rest of her baby. Voila- the baby was not “born alive”, so that’s an abortion.And how about this eg. as the previous Governor of VA- Northam, a pediatric neurologist was only too happy to helpfully explain. The doctor would deliver the viable baby, lay the child on a table, make it comfortable, then the doctor and the mother would decide what to do next! How many pro-abortion people in a poll would say yes to the mom deciding to let that baby die/ be executed- obviously not “none”! Now we come to the question you asked Fr. McDonald- how many pro- abortion advocates (let alone militants like the ones vandalizing, torching crisis pregnancy centers, Churches, threatening Supreme Court Justices ) would say that a mom who murders her toddler should not be prosecuted or at any rate should just get a slap on the wrist! Obviously the answer would not be none!
The Democrat Party’s support of abortion has evolved according to the logic therein. This, of course, supports the immorality that is running rampant in the area of sexuality that has a logical conclusion that evolves over time. By sexuality, I mean the complete denial of natural law as it concerns sexuality, fecundity, marriage and gender. Today’s culture, supported by Democrats, is pagan and make no mistake it is a kind of pagan religion.
Originally, with Roe V. Wade, there were limits on abortion and even famous democrats, like the Clintons, would say abortion should be legal but rare. That has evolved to a place where we now see Democrats supporting partial birth abortion of a 9 month baby in the birth canal. And some say that a woman should have a choice to kill a born child that may have some kind of defect or suffered some kind of injury during birth, like a pair of scissors inserted in the baby’s neck in a botched partial birth abortion.
The Church’s teaching about abortion is that it is killing a child. I hope you are not supporting a kind of ideology that says a child is less human at various stages of that child’s development. A toddler would fit that description. And yes, a person who has the logic of abortion as being something that is a moral and private choice and should be legal when the child is at a certain age of development, by way of that logic and with society’s acceptance, will support the murder of a toddler and you when you become a problem for them.
Mark, are you agreeing with the ideology of equating the “Holocaust” of abortion with the Jewish Holocaust is more serious than the actual killing of children? And again, I ask, are you saying a child in her earlier stages of development is less human and thus it is less evil to kill a baby in the womb compared to a 10 year old? Your politics and rhetoric makes it sound like you have drunk the Kool-aide.
In other words, is it a more serious mistake (a greater mortal sin) to use the word holocaust (which has multiple meanings, btw) in a way that a particular religion does not like compared to another religion who calls abortion murder no matter what stage of development in the womb and no matter how that human being was conceived?
Keep in mind too, that one definition of Holocaust, with a capital “H” is Jesus Christ on the Cross and during the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Jesus is the Holocaust. Look it up.
Not using the term "holocaust" to describe events other than the Nazi pogrom against the Jews and others is not merely a matter of what "a particular religion does not like."
It is a matter of respecting the singular experience of the Jewish people for persecution, not only in the 1930's and 1940's, but throughout their existence. And we must recall that much, if not most of the mistreatment of the Jews came at the hands of Catholics and the Church.
Sophia:
Thank you for your response. Father McDonald seemed to be saying two related things—first, that the “logic” of “Democratic ideology” (and specifically Senator Warnock) would consider that law enforcement should not be involved in investigating and prosecuting this toddler’s tragic death; second, and more fundamentally (perhaps as the major premise in his own syllogism), such “logic” also justifies the murder of toddlers:
“This mother followed the Democrat Party’s ideology about the manslaughter, infanticide and murder of innocent children based upon a mother’s right to choose to kill their child with the help of hitmen, the doctors she might or might not consult.”
I was questioning this second assertion—an assertion Father McDonald repeats in his reply to me. You also address this second assertion in the bulk of your response. I hope you (and others) understand that I find the episodes you describe as horrifying as you do. But if you bring them up to those who support a legal right to abortion, they will say at least two things. First, these are extreme—and relatively very rare—situations; the great majority of abortions occur at a much earlier stage in pregnancy. Second, even in these extreme, rare situations, there is almost always something terribly wrong with the baby (for example, no skull or brain). They may well be correct in their first point but incorrect in their second point. See:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/
Irrespective of the correctness of various claims regarding late term abortions, I still doubt that anyone supporting such late term abortions (let alone early term abortions) would seek to justify murdering a toddler. And isn’t the reason because their “moral intuitions” about the situations are different. Even though these intuitions may be mistaken, one still must explain why they are different.
Father McDonald:
No, I am not saying those things. What I am saying is that those we seek to persuade would say those things and therefore we must find a more effective way of persuading them.
Wouldn’t it be more productive to have a conversation with our interlocutors in the same spirit reflected in the quote (is it from Sister Becquart or Pope Francis?) that you reproduce in a later thread, suitably adapted to the context, including the fact that we are not talking about a synod and that many of our interlocutors do not (explicitly) believe in God?
“We need a respectful, mutual listening, free of ideology and predetermined agendas. The aim is not to reach agreement by means of a contest between opposing positions, but to journey together to seek God’s will, allowing differences to harmonize. Most important of all is the synodal spirit: to meet each other with respect and trust, to believe in our shared unity and to receive the new thing that the Spirit wishes to reveal to us.”
This is very close, by the way, to the first type of political conversation I describe in chapter 8 of my book, one that I hope can then lead to a second type of conversation in which we seek for the truth together. Of course, it requires us to humbly suppress any egoistic impulses we might have to dominate in the conversation and to trust instead that God will lead it. Is this idealistic? Yes, but where would we be without ideals?
Sophia here: Hi again Mark. Here is the information on the numbers of late term abortions- both dismemberment (term is self-explanatory ) and partial birth abortion ( delivering the head , scissors to the base of the skull suctioning out the brain, crushing the skull etc- which is done when the baby is too large and bones too hard for dismemberment and besides, dismemberment takes longer), and the reasons for these horrific, diabolical procedures. Neither the numbers or the reasons for them are what people would rather believe! Approx. 10,000 per year and for the very same reasons moms have their babies killed at earlier gestational ages! As with with all behaviors some people do even what they are not allowed to do, let alone what they are allowed to do -no matter how heinous! And apparently there is nothing too heinous for the majority of Democrat politicians to allow. So as I already said, if you were to ask people if it should be a woman’s “ choice” to kill her toddler some of them, and definitely those who want to to have that option would definitely say “yes” and it would just be a matter of time before some Democrat politicians would pass laws to allow them to do just that! My logic is very clear on this and so is Fr. McDonald’s and so are any number of people’ s if they have an average IQ and intellectual integrity. Would anyone have even imagined in 1973 when the Roe v Wade ruling came down that in the U.S. we would ever have any procedure as wicked and gruesome as the dismemberment and partial birth abortion of tiny little humans? Do you realize that virtually no other “ free” country allows this? That we are standing alongside North Korea and Communist China? Never mind , “ the nose of the camel is in the tent”, regarding this and so many other deadly practices, 8/9 of his body is already in the tent! The pagans also had child sacrifice, but they had not had over two thousand years of Christianity- we have! So we are infinitely worse than they are!
https://lozierinstitute.org/questions-and-answers-on-late-term-abortion/
Sophia here: Yes Mark it is absolutely my position that victory by the “MAGA movement” as you have characterized it would actually lead to restoring America to a flourishing economy, a decreased threat of more abortions ( up to birth) via the expanded abortion law President Biden and Democrat lawmakers are eager to enact, an attenuation of the galloping rates of the medical abuse of gender confused youths and associated violation of Conscience Rights for Medical personnel, reduced violent crimes in states and cities i.e. a return of the rule of law, energy independence, secure borders, an effective foreign policy etc. NOT any of the outcomes you mentioned above. In fact those outcomes and other horrific ones are precisely what the current administration, has imposed on the entire country and like- minded administrations in cities and states have imposed on them. As for the “Or” question, that is the very reason why some who do so, actually vote for current Democrats despite their deadly, destructive anti- American policies and laws, because they share their agenda which is rooted in Socialism/ Communism an ideology which is inherently inimical to human dignity!
This is precisely why every Pope since Leo Xlll - except for Pope Francis had this to say about Socialism/Communism:
https://www.tfp.org/what-the-popes-have-to-say-about-socialism/
Mark - As Sophia make clear, those of us who do not share her
pollyanna-ish view of the outcome of restoring MAGA rule are not logical, have sub-average IQs, and have no intellectual integrity. I'm somewhat surprised that she did not also accuse us of killing our pets, putting razor blades in apples for Halloween treats, and running sex trafficing rings through our local pizza shops.
Needless to say, I do not share her appreciation of the "benefits" of one party MAGA rule, nor her analysis of the causes of our current difficulties.
As for her fear of socialism, I wonder if she has ever used a publicly funded library, needed the publicly funded police or fire departments, driven on roads that were funded with tax dollars, flown in airspace controlled and made safe by the publicly fuded FAA, or taken a medication approved by the "socialist" FDA.
Amazing... But that's the "thinking" of the Big Lie, MAGA crowd.
Mark – I appreciate your desire to establish a foundation (starting with your post of October 15, 2022 at 5:13 PM) for more meaningful and respectful discussions regarding abortion and voting. I agree that if we can first establish where our views are in alignment, then we have a common reference point for better understanding our differing opinions and engaging in more meaningful discussions. Otherwise, we are just talking past one another. We both agree that abortion is horrific and that winning over hearts and minds is key in reducing the number of abortions. I also believe that it is important to have laws that protect human life in the womb. I do not believe that we need to choose one approach over the other, but rather that both are needed.
I am not sure what your point is with respect to the MAGA movement in your 5:13 am post, but I will nonetheless offer my thoughts. I disagree with your characterization of the MAGA movement. My view is more in alignment with the vision that Sophia outlined in her 10:12 am post. For me, it is broader than Trump the person. My hope is that Trump fades away from national political prominence but that much of the agenda continues to be pursued by other conservatives. So, no I don’t see the MAGA movement as leading to illiberal democracy.
Sophia:
I appreciate you joining me in the attempt to think clearly about the issue of abortion and establish the facts and truth about the matter. As I have repeatedly said, it is important to do this so that we can be more effective in trying to win over hearts and minds on the issue by basing our arguments on clear thinking, facts, and truth, and not confused thinking, wild exaggerations, and other misleading claims.
To make effective and persuasive arguments, one must be able to put oneself in the position of those defending a legal right to abortion (our interlocutors), to try to see things as they do, and to anticipate arguments they might make (including rebuttals of any arguments we might make). This is lawyering advocacy 101 and holds equally well for moral argumentation too.
I do agree that the descriptions of the gruesome abortion methods in the source you linked are horrific. I also think that to the extent these methods are used, especially if it can be established that the aborted fetus feels pain (or even might feel pain), that making our interlocutors aware of these methods in their graphic detail could be powerfully persuasive.
But these are the points I would expect our interlocutors to make:
First, they will argue that the fetus cannot experience pain until at least the third trimester of pregnancy, and they will cite such sources as the following for support:
https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/gestational-development-capacity-for-pain
Second, they will argue that, even according to the source you cited, in “late term abortions” an injection has been given a day or two before the procedure to ensure that the fetus is already dead before the procedure occurs.
Third, they will argue that the figure of 10,000 for late term abortions is misleading because it covers the entire period after 21 weeks. In fact, however, although there are no relevant federal statistics, state statistics indicate that the great majority of these abortions do not occur during the third trimester but before the 24th week. See the links in the following source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/22/gop-claim-that-democrats-support-abortion-up-moment-birth/
So, how to respond? Perhaps the saying that pictures are worth a thousand words is especially applicable in this context:
https://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/20-weeks-pregnant
And more generally:
https://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/your-body/inside-pregnancy-weeks-1-to-9_10302602
https://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/trimesters/inside-pregnancy-weeks-10-to-14_10308108
https://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/your-baby/inside-pregnancy-weeks-15-to-20_10308111
https://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/your-baby/inside-pregnancy-weeks-21-to-27_10312242
https://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/your-baby/inside-pregnancy-weeks-28-to-37_3658874
Later I will respond to you and Dave Thoman addressing our respective views on MAGA.
Sophia and Dave:
First, some more thoughts on abortion: I do understand, of course, the desire to make abortion illegal. However, I question the efficacy of this approach to eliminating abortion, at least until the culture is ready for it. If the June 2022 Pew Research Center study is accurate, the culture is nowhere close to being ready:
“Pew Research Center has conducted many surveys about abortion over the years, providing a lens into Americans’ views on whether the procedure should be legal, among a host of other questions. In our most recent survey, 61% of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal all or most of the time, while 37% say it should be illegal all or most of the time.”
See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/24/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/
The study contains a lot of additional useful information. And the following Pew study form May 2022 (the “most recent survey” they refer to above) gives much more detail on attitudes toward abortion:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/
If the goal is to eliminate abortion entirely or reduce it as much as possible, I very much doubt this goal can be achieved through coercive measures in the face of such cultural headwinds. Instead, any such attempts will encounter fierce opposition and the political “war” over abortion will likely never end (not to mention increased resort to medicated abortion, travel to jurisdictions where abortion is still legal, and illegal abortions in those jurisdictions where it is prohibited or greatly restricted). And those headwinds will not disappear, but will only become stronger through reaction, if there is a nation-wide ban on abortion (either through federal legislation or through SCOTUS protecting unborn persons under the Constitution).
Therefore, it is first necessary to reduce or eliminate the cultural headwinds, and I see no way to do this other than through persuasive argument. Such argument must involve educating interlocutors, objectively and honestly, about the facts and truth regarding abortion and not the clumsy use of misleading propaganda. But such arguments will not even be heard unless those defending a legal right to abortion are treated with respect, empathy, and compassion and not demonized. This requires making sure that there is adequate support for mothers and children, including where necessary through governmental measures (and not, therefore, dismissing such measures as “socialism”), and it also requires active listening to the personal stories of those women who have had an abortion or who seek an abortion (as well as other relevant voices including fathers). Do we really think that calling our interlocutors “baby killers” and as bad as the Nazis is productive?
[continued]
And now regarding MAGA: With rare exceptions (for example, Marco Rubio on support for mothers and children), I have yet to see the MAGA movement as a whole embrace the sort of approach I outline above (please correct me if I am wrong about this). Instead, what I see is the use of abortion as a political wedge issue (and the Democrats are guilty of this too, of course), combined with a mortal threat to our Republic and the Rule of Law. We will doubtless continue to disagree on this point. But until I see the MAGA movement reject Trump and the Big Lie, and until I see them “softening” on the issue of abortion in the ways described above, I cannot support MAGA.
For me, if we don’t have a Republic and the Rule of Law, we have nothing except brute force wielded by an authoritarian government. This country was founded on the idea that Americans could engage in self-rule aiming at a “more perfect union.” It has never been perfect, but it has made progress. Recently, we have regressed badly, and our politics has become badly corrupted because we no longer have a shared commitment to one another, to facts and truth, to civil political conversation, and to the virtues these things require. Instead, we have a “civil war carried on by other means” (in Alasdair MacIntyre’s memorable phrase), lies and conspiracy theories, and the domination of politics by money and a lust for power and wealth. Before we even reach any substantive issues, then, we must repair the process by which we govern ourselves. Trump and MAGA are not the solution; they are part of the problem.
You might want to take a closer look at the May 2022 Pew survey. It is very illuminating, Here is the link again:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/
The survey addresses many different aspects of public opinion on abortion, and it may suggest a compromise position (for example, legal with only procedural requirements until 15 weeks and prohibition with strictly applied exceptions afterwards). I suspect this is where Chief Justice Roberts wanted to go in the Dobbs case. Even though Roberts is Catholic, he is also Chief Justice and concerned to preserve the legitimacy of the Court. [Four of the other five Justices in the majority are Catholic and Gorsuch, although now Episcopalian (doubtless due to his wife whom he met in England while doing his PhD at Oxford), is also often included because he was raised Catholic.]
Perhaps we should recall, too, that politics is the art of the possible, not the impossible, although what is impossible today might become possible tomorrow if political leaders act with wisdom, adopting an incremental approach that acknowledges we have to run a marathon, not a sprint.
Mark – I will not at this time attempt to address all your points but instead will pick a few to respond to. First, I celebrate the decision to overturn Roe. It was not only correct from a moral perspective but also a constitutional one in my opinion. Our country was founded on the novel idea at the time that our basic rights come from God, not from the government. Abortion is not one of these rights. I am not sure what the practical outcome will be with respect to reducing abortion numbers but being on the right side based on principle is important to me on this one. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on Biden’s announcement today that he wants to codify Roe via legislation.
I agree that winning hearts and minds is important and that there is a cultural headwind to overcome. I would posit that it is the leaders of the Democratic Party that over the years, aided by the media, has largely created this cultural headwind. They have gone from a position of wanting abortion to be rare (as well as safe and legal), to generally pushing no restrictions on abortions. Some even celebrate it. They essentially deny the reality that abortion is the ending of a human life in a horrific way. Any opposition to abortion is a war on women.
I cannot support a candidate that promotes the big lie that the Democratic Party leaders push about abortion. This lie denies the sacredness of human life. It denies the harm that is does to women and the devaluation of life that has rippling effects throughout our society. The lie goes further to claim that this intrinsically evil act is actually a moral good that needs to be protected as a human health right.
I agree with you that adequate support is needed for women and children. I agree that women contemplating abortion deserve respect, empathy, and compassion. I also agree that hardline political positions might not be practical, and an incremental approach may have merit, but will reject any politician that denies that abortion ends a human life.
Edit to my last post: should have said “celebrate passing of abortion laws”
Dave:
Thank you for your response. I completely understand and respect your principled position. If I thought that voting Democrat meant “approving” the legislation Biden proposes, I would share it. Thankfully, however, for me it does not mean that. If I vote Democrat (or, as I would prefer to view it, against MAGA), it will be because the Democratic Party represents, in my own view, a better chance of preserving the Republic and the Rule of Law than the current Trump dominated Republican Party. They would get my vote, then, not because of but in spite of their position on abortion.
While trying to help ensure, with my tiny vote, the continued survival of the Republic and the Rule of Law, I will then continue to work, again in my own small way, for better outcomes on abortion. I do not support the current Democratic proposed legislation, which is too broad and loosely worded (and may not even be constitutional), and I also wish that the Democratic Party would return to the notion that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare (even if it is politically unrealistic for Democratic leaders to say, as you and I would have it, that it should be nonexistent). In my view, it is a very bad moral and political mistake to have abandoned this notion.
Post a Comment