Why Is The Reverse Never True?
So Giuliani, I think, completely tanked his own personal chances at getting the nomination the other day by saying that "our party has to get beyond issues like [abortion]", as quoted here and many other places. Some are construing this as his advocacy of "big tent Republicanism", but I frankly can't read this in any other way than "I'm going to either completely ignore or totally rebuff all of you people who take the naive view that ending the legalized mass murder of millions of innocent human beings is vastly more important than pretty much everything else that our party represents". Granted, he already lost me by being to the left of most Dem candidates with regard to federally funded abortions. But it got me thinking.
We so often hear from virtually every "mainstream" pro-abortion-rights candidate, be he/she Democrat or Republican, that they are "personally against abortion", but can't bring themselves to "force their views on the women of America", or some such nonsense like that. They'll often throw in a "I would counsel any of my own relations against it!" for good measure. Think Giuliani, think Kerry, etc. Of course this view doesn't stand up against even the weakest scrutiny, but that's a post for a later time. What got me thinking is this: why is the reverse never true? Why is there never a politician who legislates pro-life, but argues "Personally, I am pro-choice, but I don't believe I should force those views onto mainstream America"? Sure, it may seem silly, but it's just as logically consistent as the other position.
We so often hear from virtually every "mainstream" pro-abortion-rights candidate, be he/she Democrat or Republican, that they are "personally against abortion", but can't bring themselves to "force their views on the women of America", or some such nonsense like that. They'll often throw in a "I would counsel any of my own relations against it!" for good measure. Think Giuliani, think Kerry, etc. Of course this view doesn't stand up against even the weakest scrutiny, but that's a post for a later time. What got me thinking is this: why is the reverse never true? Why is there never a politician who legislates pro-life, but argues "Personally, I am pro-choice, but I don't believe I should force those views onto mainstream America"? Sure, it may seem silly, but it's just as logically consistent as the other position.
posted by Benjamin at 1:03 PM
1 Comments:
One of the authors at Jimmy Akin's Catholic apologetics web site is pretty much apoplectic about Giuliani's recent inanity. I have been giving the three Republican candidates that in a perfect world I would never vote for a fair listen. With each of Rudy, McCain, and Romney, I have serious issues, but each has his strengths, and all (even still!) are preferable to anything the opposition is likely to put up. But Giuliani has pretty much hammered the last nail in his coffin as far as getting my vote. And I can only hope that he tanks now. I don't think he can win the general election in any case. It would be a liberal against a liberal, but the Democrat liberal would have his party's backing.
BTW, the reason the reverse is never stated is that in modern American politics, we must never say we will judge anyone or limit anyone's action. So it's understandable, from this p.o.v., to say you would never take away someone's freedom to terminate their pregnancy, though you'd never choose to do so yourself.
Post a Comment
<< Home