Regular readers of my personal blog and my comments elsewhere no doubt realize that I am unsympathetic to appeals to "reasonable men can differ" when we are talking about, literally, a willful holocaust of millions of innocents.
No, reasonable men cannot differ. Unreasonable men will differ, of course, but that is a different matter.
In point of fact, I see this as another riff on the infamous Cuomo-riffic "personally opposed, but" reasoning. Some folks claim to be personally opposed to voting for Barack Obama, the most zealous pro-abortion Presidential candidate ever: that is, they won't be voting for him themselves. Yet these same people defend as reasonable the choice of others to vote for him. I'm not sure which is worse, frankly. At least the man who says he is going to vote for Obama has the courage of his (wrong) convictions. The "personally opposed" camp, though, is willing to scream for wiggle room for others to vote for the man who personally blocked passage of the Induced Infant Liability Act in the great state of Illinois, without having the courage to do so themselves.
Comments (17)
It is a reasonable choice for a pro-lifer to vote for Obama because a politician's stance on abortion is nothing other than a vote hunting measure. Voting for a politician based on their stance on abortion - whether pro-life or pro-choice - is simply to be a useful idiot.
Posted by Mike | August 12, 2008 1:29 PM
Zippy,
I mean to vote for Barack Obama. It is my conviction (wrongly in your view?) that today's Democratic party probably cannot be salvaged for the purpose of fixing What's Wrong with the United States whereas today's Republican party probably can be so salvaged, but that the principal immediate obstacle to salvaging the Republican party is its personal leadership by the well-meaning but obstinately misguided John McCain. For demographic reasons, the window of opportunity to fix What's Wrong with the United States is rapidly closing. American traditionalists simply cannot afford the luxury to dally four or eight years in McCainism. We need access now to the repository of political power the Republican party represents. If I am right that the U.S. no longer has any safe path forward, only a choice of dangers, then how can I not vote Obama in 2008?
If the Induced Infant Liability Act is what I suppose that it is, then I am as horrified by its blocked passage as you are. Is it wholly unreasonably however to judge that a McCain administration were unlikely actually to save very many unborn lives and that, under such a circumstance, there might be other important national issues at stake in 2008 than abortion? As much as the life of an unborn child is worth---and it is indeed worth a great deal---under present conditions I do not believe that I can effectively do very much to save many such lives from the barbarism of post-1960s society, except by raising my own daughters to know not to kill. The last, I have done.
However, the life of a nation is worth something, too. Moreover, the lives of my own children and grandchildren are thankfully not directly threatened by the abortion holocaust, whereas the life of my own nation is indeed threatened, by factors you yourself have chronicled in this very space. Is not my first duty to my own?
You may disagree, but are you so sure that my stance is inherently unreasonable?
I remain open to suasion on the question, but I thought that I should at least put the other side of the point.
Howard
(P.S. Some will inevitably accuse me of racism, whatever that is supposed to mean, for mentioning "demographics," of which naturally race is a component. The accusation is so tired and worn out however that I wonder whether it is really necessary to reply to it. Others, more reasonably, will ask if I am not familiar with Catholic teaching on immigration. I am familiar and I am indeed a practicing Catholic. I cannot but have the utmost respect for the moral giant, the heroic late Cardinal Thuan, who authored on behalf of the Vatican the epistle in question, for the cardinal's stature is such that few---Catholic or otherwise---would presume not to lend his words a respectful ear. My personal belief nevertheless is that, in this matter, the good cardinal erred.)
Posted by Howard J. Harrison | August 12, 2008 1:33 PM
For demographic reasons, the window of opportunity to fix What's Wrong with the United States is rapidly closing.
You've got to be joking here -- if anything, the more massive Welfare State Obama intends to create will only mean a greater harm to the citizenry.
Obama seems more intent on fixing What's Wrong with the World and Promote a Welfare State program on a Global Scale:
LINK:
BLANKLEY: Obama's Worldview
Posted by aristocles | August 12, 2008 1:51 PM
Howard: Thanks for the comment. I recommend against voting for McCain as well. The main point of my post though isn't the candidates themselves, but the meta-point of virtuous intolerance: like an anti-Rodney-King, I ask the question "can't we all agree that someone is wrong?"
Posted by Zippy | August 12, 2008 2:30 PM
Zippy,
Did you note read Mr. Harrison's comments? He aims to vote for Obama for the sake of the well-being of the nation.
What of his "I mean to vote for Barack Obama", "Is it wholly unreasonably however to judge that a McCain administration were unlikely actually to save very many unborn lives and that, under such a circumstance, there might be other important national issues at stake in 2008 than abortion?" and "However, the life of a nation is worth something, too. Moreover, the lives of my own children and grandchildren are thankfully not directly threatened by the abortion holocaust, whereas the life of my own nation is indeed threatened, by factors you yourself have chronicled in this very space. Is not my first duty to my own?" comments did you not grasp?
It is an argument not unlike one that was similarly submitted by M.Z. Forrest (although, this one was the far more eloquent one -- no offense, M.Z.).
Although, it is rather curious that you somehow found elements within it which apparently you seem to sympathize with. Does this mean you are more "for" than you are "again"?
Posted by aristocles | August 12, 2008 2:47 PM
Aristocles: when I refrain from commenting on something, that doesn't imply anything other than that I refrained from commenting on it.
Posted by Zippy | August 12, 2008 2:49 PM
Apologies, Zippy, but there is the maxim "silence gives consent" whereupon I assumed this might happened to have been the case.
Posted by aristocles | August 12, 2008 3:06 PM
Mike says,
If I really believed that a candidate's professed pro-life stance were patently insincere and would have no effect on his actual actions in office, I probably would not vote for him. But I will also note that insincerely saying, "It should be illegal to tear babies to pieces with forceps" is in some significant sense better than sincerely saying, "It should be legal to tear babies to pieces with forceps." The first man may be an insincere vote-hunter; the second is a sincere moral monster. There's more to morality than sincerity.
Posted by Lydia | August 12, 2008 3:12 PM
In truth, Zippy Catholic is quite honestly, correct. No legitimate excuse exists for turning a blind eye to the opposing view, in this instance. I am personally opposed to Barack Obama's 'values' and make mention of my opinion of them to those opposing my view. I also make mention of the difficulties I have in distinguishing the differences between many of his values from those of Hitler and Sanger. Needless to say, 'politics' is not a topic of discussion among my colleagues and I. At least, not while I'm in the room.
Posted by Lara | August 12, 2008 3:16 PM
This is all very well, but McCain is proving himself to be a trigger-happy maniac, which as President, he will have the power to carry out. Obama could indirectly facilitate abortion by appointing little Ginzburgs to the Supremes, but only in that way. McCain would have his hand on the button.
Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choice.
Posted by Grumpy Old Man | August 12, 2008 11:33 PM
He's already said he recommends against voting for McCain. Read before you write.
Posted by William Luse | August 13, 2008 3:47 AM
It's not simply abortion where Obama fails (as if that failing were in any way to be overlooked); he fails on the economy, taxation, the Supreme Court, national defense, education, civil rights, energy independence, the national budget, Israel, immigration, and more. Or, put differently, he fails in every way pointed out so graphically and memorably by Alan Keyes when they debated. That series of confrontations was the most intellectually lopsided and dramatic trouncing I have ever witnessed at any level of political discourse.
But the very idea that we can or should overlook a candidate's views on abortion is truly appalling. It's a greater failing than if that candidate came out on the wrong side of the slavery issue: "Oh, sure, Candidate X is wrong on slavery, but he's very good on education."
Posted by Michael Bauman | August 13, 2008 8:31 AM
BO to Planned Parenthood:
"The first thing I'll do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."
Now you know his priorities. Here's where he'll start. It's the first thing on his agenda. You overlook it at the mortal peril of millions of innocent children in his first term alone.
Posted by Michael Bauman | August 13, 2008 9:32 AM
"But the very idea that we can or should overlook a candidate's views on abortion is truly appalling. It's a greater failing than if that candidate came out on the wrong side of the slavery issue: "Oh, sure, Candidate X is wrong on slavery, but he's very good on education.""
I agree with this. It reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons where they had a mayoral election between mayor Quimby and Sideshow Bob, and Homer ended up voting for Bob with the motivation "I don't approve of his Bart-killing policy, but I do approve of his Selma-killing policy".
Posted by Jacob | August 13, 2008 9:55 AM
His mouth-frothing support for the FOCA puts the lie to the absurd notion that aboriton policy will remain basically unchanged during an Obama presidency, as though the president literally has no direct influence over such things. Just because a thing can't be banned (which is only the case because of judicial interference), doesn't mean that it can't be expanded, encouraged, funded, or what have you. The Court never struck down laws explicitly permitting abortion, or its subsidization, and it never mandated that the federal government could not enact some heavy-handed pro-abortion legislation to remove all restrictions on it. Wherefrom comes this notion that RvW bound everybody's hands?
Posted by Sage | August 13, 2008 10:38 AM
Agreed, Sage.
Or, paraphrasing Shakespeare, I could summarize the projected Obama presidency this way: "First thing we do is kill all the unborn."
Well, not all of them, just a million or so a year.
Posted by Michael Bauman | August 13, 2008 12:12 PM
“Roe is not an endorsement of abortion, so much as an affirmation that abortion is a moral question for which only the potential mother can give answer.”
I understand the definition of this particular response to be called (affirmatively) 'looping.'
Of late, I have taken to tilting my head sideways, as would a questioning pooch, while trying to decipher the comments coming forth from the mouth of Sen. Obama. If such a malady as moral vertigo exists, he has a lethal case of it.
I no longer believe the likes of Sen. Obama and his ilk are misguided, mistaken or misinformed--theirs is a concerted effort to create a hell on earth.
Posted by Laura | August 15, 2008 1:55 PM