Monday, May 12, 2008

Darwin Catholic: "A Pro-Choice Politician I Could Support"

Darwin describes a "A Pro-Choice Politician [He] Could Support":
... Thinking all this through, I do not think it is possible for one to argue, from a pro-life perspective, that the election of any politician who is only anti-abortion in the abortion-is-like-having-your-wisdom-teeth-out sense will move us closer to a culture of life. However, there is a kind of pro-choice candidate who I think could. Imagine that a pro-choice candidate emerged who said, "I believe that abortion consists of the intentional killing of an innocent human person. As such, it is a great moral evil. A just country would ban such a practice. Unfortunately, we are not a just country and too many of us rely on evil to maintain our standard of living. I don't believe that during the next four years it is possible for us to make any progress towards outlawing this act of killing. So while I will support policies that will give women in crisis pregnancies other options, I will not advance any new legislation to end the slaughter. Some day, I hope, we will reach the point when we're ready to stop, and then we will change our laws to protect every human life."

Now, I disagree with that approach, but I can respect it a lot more than the "safe, legal and rare" rhetoric. I could see how electing that kind of pro-choice politician would help move us forward...


Labels: , ,


At 5/12/2008 6:30 PM, Blogger GrannyGrump said...

Actually, a prochoice politician who actually PRACTICED what the abortion lobby preaches would probably do more to reduce abortion than all the prolife politicians combined -- because he'd not be viewed as "the enemy" by prochoice citizens who are deluded into believing that the abortion lobby is trustworthy.

At 5/12/2008 7:20 PM, Anonymous crankycon said...

Looking more closely at Darwin's post, and the proposed language sounds a lot like Jeffersonian logic with regards to slavery. They moaned about it all the while continuing to enjoy the fruits of it. Interesting.

At 5/12/2008 9:10 PM, Blogger Darwin said...


Interesting point. Though it may have been hypocrisy to a certain extent, I think one could argue that the Jeffersonian logic around keeping slavery eventually helped build a climate that spawned the Abolitionist movement, so I suppose one could argue that was a good thing. So that would fit, in a sense.

The "it's evil but we need it" argument works as a temporary rationalization, but I think over time people gravitate (by psychological necessity) to either "it's not evil" or "we don't need and should ban it."

At 5/12/2008 9:45 PM, Blogger Tito Edwards said...


Based on what I read here in Jay's post, I still don't see the rational for voting pro-choice. Just because the politician is actually honest about the position and at the same time saying it's a necessary evil is not justifiable to vote pro-choice.

Now if you want to go with your "Jeffersonian" lobic, remember the United States fought a bloody war because of this "logic".


At 5/13/2008 9:00 AM, Blogger Darwin said...

To be clear, it's not that I would particularly want to support a politician such as I described. I fully intend to vote pro-life only. (Mainly because, as I said in the full post, I think there's a serious "this person represents who we are" aspect to voting -- for the presidency especially.)

However, since there are a number of people trying to claim that a pro-choice politician could "move us forward in a national conversation" about abortion, I wanted to clarify under what conditions that would or would not move us anywhere.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

hit counter for blogger