Friday, March 9, 2007

You haven't seen me unreasonable yet. [Jay]

In a post on JivinJehoshaphat's BLOG he linked to this article in the National Catholic Register on Rudy G and his appeal to the pro-life voter in his '08 Presidential campaign.

The mentioned appeal from the Republican at large for the pro-lifer to be reasonable is of interest to me. This I see as completely different from Scott and other apologists arguing to do the most good with our vote that we can when faced with unfavorable candidate choices. This is an appeal for pro-lifers to not make such a big deal over the abortion issue that we cost the GOP an otherwise “electable” candidate.

The quote in the article characterizes the Pro-Rudy GOP position as this:
"They hope that pro-lifers will 'be reasonable,' not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and go along quietly."

The response from the editors is classic and what I wanted to highlight here:
"But what dooms the deal from the start is the fact that it totally misunderstands what pro-lifers care about in the first place. When they ask us to “be reasonable” and go along with a pro-abortion leader, they assume that there is something unreasonable about the pro-life position to start with. We’re sorry, but we don’t see what is so unreasonable about the right to life."

They go on to make the point I have always stressed about the implications for the pro-life movement if a pro-choice leader gets through and becomes the representative of the GOP leadership. A friend of mine who works for the government and is daily up to his elbows in legislation from the Executive branch of our state supports this line of reasoning as well. He knows full well how the personal views of the Chief Executive influence the structure and proposition of legislative action. Promises may get the man elected, but the man himself will ultimately govern. (Or woman if you so choose)

As for the charge that pro-lifers are unreasonable. You haven’t seen me unreasonable yet. I am just getting warmed up. Let the GOP start trying to minimize the cost of the lives of the unborn in an effort to court some middle ground voter that is tired of hearing about the continuing state sanctioned murder of thousands of innocent lives everyday. I think the pro-life movement has enough fire in the belly to make a little noise. The problem with the eternally politically minded is that they can not comprehend those who operate on unwavering principle. Pro-lifers do not seek to see pro-life legislation championed so that our side might win a political victory over our opposition. We believe that the unborn are innocent human beings that are being killed with the legal approval of our government. No compromise will ever politically satisfy us, no matter how we tactically approach this issue. We will always be bothering everyone else about the sanctity of human life until the killing stops. Asking us to keep it down because we are upsetting people will only convince us that you still don’t get it.


  1. Two days ago I was talking to a social conservative customer at my job. The customer says that elective abortion should not be allowed. However, he said that he would vote for someone like Rudy G because Rudy G is supposedly strong on terrorism. He put it like this: (a hypothetical) Rudy G is (unfortunately) an elective abortion advocate but he is strong on terrorism. If Rudy G’s opponent is weak on terrorism, we should vote for Rudy G even though Rudy’s opponent holds that elective abortion should not be allowed. The customer essentially implies that we should put the terrorism issue first when we are trying to figure out who to vote for. How would you answer the customer?

  2. Kyl,

    I have two responses to this type of conversation. The first is the big dog argument in the pro-life position. Ask your friend, “What is the unborn?” If they are innocent human beings then I can say for certain that on average 1.3 million Americans are killed every year by legal surgical abortions. Terrorism does not come close to that number. So I am not immediately convinced that international terrorism is automatically a weightier moral issue than abortion by virtue of being more frightening to those of us who have had the privilege of being born. Just because we have become accustomed to the moral offense of abortion, it does not necessarily hold that abortion is less morally offensive.

    The second response is this, what politician is pro-terrorism? I know that there are a great many politicians that are pro-abort, but when was the last time you had a serious Republican or Democratic Presidential candidate campaign on the platform that terrorists are not so bad?

    Why do I have to choose between security and the unborn anyway? They may try to make the argument that a candidate is so good at fighting terrorism that we would lose by not having him or her in office, but why should we believe that claim without strong evidence? International terrorism is a very complicated issue that can not be stopped because a single individual holds an office in the United States. We can not simply make terrorism illegal and save the lives of millions of people as we can with abortion. We can not decide as a nation that terrorism is wrong and see it go away. All serious politicians in the United States are going to take an anti-terrorism position, and they all have very little track record for us to determine how they will fight the war on terror. Being the mayor of a city that was attacked by terrorists seems a weak qualification to be the most effective anti-terrorist candidate. That he reduced violent crime with strong policies is still not convincing. The problem of terrorism will not be handled by more police officers on the streets and tougher enforcement. Why should I accept that RG or anyone else is SO TOUGH on terrorism that I should overlook the fact that the unborn are not human beings in their minds? Why should it not matter that a candidate thinks we are free to kill the unborn whenever killing them appears easier or more personally beneficial than allowing them to live? Why can’t we demand someone who feels strongly about protecting all life? It is not like this is a quest for a unicorn or something.


  3. It's worth pointing out, too, that Rudy is very soft on immigration. This is a terrorism-related issue. Don't get me wrong--so is G.W. Bush. But the point is, at least Bush is supposedly pro-life. I don't know where all this "tough on terrorism" stuff is coming with Rudy. Maybe just that he's in favor of the war in Iraq? But it ain't the same thing. I wouldn't expect to be significantly more safe with an R.G. as president, if more safe at all, than with a Democrat in the White House. Not that this touches the more in-principle questions, but I think some conservatives are being taken for a ride on this one. Let's here Rudy speak up against the flying imams' nonsense and take a tough stand against CAIR, and maybe I'll believe he's going to make us safer against terrorism.

  4. I agree with you Jay. Thanks for great information!

  5. Lydia,
    Thanks for your contribution.


All comments are moderated. We reject all comments containing obscenity. We reserve the right to reject any and all comments that are considered inappropriate or off-topic without explanation.