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...
[More]
Labels: Elections, Pro-Life, Voting Your Values
posted by Pro Ecclesia 6:05 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
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.
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.
Crankycon,
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."
Darwin,
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".
Tito
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
<< Home