Functionally Pro Abortion

November 14, 2008 § 11 Comments

We define as “functionally pro abortion” any person who willingly voted for Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history. Persons who voted for Obama may or may not be pro-abortion in their private sentiments, and may profess to be pro-life; but as political actors they are indistinguishable from the most committed of pro-abortion voters.

There seems to be something about being functionally pro-abortion but confessionally pro-life that badly distorts the capacity to reason. For example, one functionally pro-abortion blogger, who has himself endorsed and made common cause with the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history, recently suggested that the pro-life movement should stop making common cause with such bad actors as … wait for it … big business and the National Rifle Association.

Mind you, I myself have said in no uncertain terms that pro-lifers should not vote for presidential candidates who actively pursue policies of mass murdering the innocent as part of their agenda; and included in that category this cycle were both John McCain and Barack Obama. On the other hand, John McCain voters were not functionally pro-ESCR: that is, they could not be counted on to vote for the most pro-ESCR candidate. A great many of them clearly would have voted for an anti-ESCR major party candidate, if one had been on the ballot.

I should point out that, in addition, I have myself been critical of big business and gun libertarianism.

But I would not for a moment suggest what is ludicrously being suggested here: that, simultaneously, a coalition with the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history makes prudential sense for pro-lifers, and a coalition with businesses and gun rights supporters does not. Physician, heal thyself.

Tagged:

§ 11 Responses to Functionally Pro Abortion

  • e. says:

    Now, because of all the Pro-Obama Catholics who voted him into office & those Lukewarm Catholics who stood by doing nothing and making it possible for the kind of Evil the Church, indeed, the very Nation will now come to face; it has come to this, as previously predicted:“Ed Morissey at Hot Air tells us how serious the bishops are about not allowing Catholic Hospitals to be forced into performing abortions under FOCA:[The bishops will] shut them down and take the losses in order to prevent their use as abortion clinics. To do otherwise, the bishops stated, would be to cooperate in the evil of abortions.What kind of impact would that have? The Catholic Church is one of the nation’s biggest health-care providers. In 2007, they ran 557 hospitals that serviced over 83 million patients. The church also had 417 clinics that saw over seven million patients. If they shut down almost a thousand hospitals and clinics nationwide, the US would not just lose a significant portion of available health care, but the poor and working-class families that received the health care would have fewer options.Also, the Catholic Church runs this on a non-profit basis, spending vast sums of its money to ensure access for those unable to pay. That’s the kind of model that many on the Left believe should exclusively provide health care — and FOCA would spell the end of the major provider already in that model.”SIGN THE ANTI-FOCA PETITION BELOW — IT'S THE LEAST YOU CAN DO FOR MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR A PRO-ABORT EXTREMIST TO BECOME PRESIDENT!< HREF="http://www.fightfoca.com" REL="nofollow">ANTI-FOCA PETITION<>

  • JohnMcG says:

    I agree on the larger point, but..<>We define as “functionally pro abortion” any person who willingly voted for Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history. Persons who voted for Obama may or may not be pro-abortion in their private sentiments, and may profess to be pro-life; but as political actors they are indistinguishable from the most committed of pro-abortion voters.<>I’m sorry but that definition is just plain wrong.And it is exposed as such by this:<>On the other hand, John McCain voters were not functionally pro-ESCR: that is, they could not be counted on to vote for the most pro-ESCR candidate. A great many of them clearly would have voted for an anti-ESCR major party candidate, if one had been on the ballot. <>It seems to me that if McCain voters get a pass on this ride, Obama voters get one as well.In other words, I have little doubt that if there were a candidate with the exact same positions as Obama but was pro-life, such a candidate would have gotten MM’s vote, and the votes of the Commonweal editorial board, etc.Therefore, it is just plain not true that they can be counted on to support the most pro-abortion candidate. It may be the case that <>in their vote in this particular election<> they were indistinguishable from pro-abortion voters, but I think it would be wrong to conclude that they are indistinguishable in general based only on their presidential votes.And I also do not believe that one’s political involvement can be reduced to one’s vote in thre presidential election.I think the sins of <>omission<> in failing to create the conditions where a genuinely pro-life candidate can be successful is much more significant that the possible sin of <>commission<> of voting for one or the other candidates. The problem is that the latter leads to the former, which is why I agree with your larger point, and want to ensure it is made on solid ground.

  • c matt says:

    e. That brings up an interesting conundrum for pro-Obama Catholics. They are consistently arguing that the “true” pro-life candidate is the one who will reduce abortion rates through improved healthcare options, regardless of his stand on the legality of abortion. Surely, on that basis, they would have to agree that a candidate who espoused policies such as refusing universal health care coverage that would wreak havoc upon the availability of healthcare is not truly pro-life. So if the candidate espouses policies such as FOCA which would require charitable hospitals to close down, also diminishing healthcare for the poor, you would think they would not vote for such a candidate either, and certainly would not have the audacity to argue such a candidate was pro-life. You would think.

  • zippy says:

    <>In other words, I have little doubt that if there were a candidate with the exact same positions as Obama but was pro-life, such a candidate would have gotten MM’s vote, and the votes of the Commonweal editorial board, etc.<>As an abstraction with rhetorical punch I’m sure many would sign up to that. As a concrete reality I don’t see it as even remotely plausible; whereas a Republican sans rabid ESCR support isn’t merely putative but an actual reality.No doubt there are extraordinarily rare exceptions which prove the rule. But back in the real world a pro-life Obama supporter is functionally indistinguishable from a pro-abortion Obama supporter.

  • Scott W. says:

    <>recently suggested that the pro-life movement should stop making common cause with such bad actors as … wait for it … big business and the National Rifle Association.<>I couldn’t get to that link, but I imagine it’s a true strap-yourselves-in-we’re-going-for-a-ride entry. In my experience, in NaomiKleinland, brutal dictators are just ducky with them as long as they are not for free trade.

  • Anonymous says:

    ZippY:“A coalition with the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history makes prudential sense for pro-lifers?”YESSSSS with the self-complacent USCCB:Just focus Biden & Pelosi receiving (with a public heralding media) the Eucharist: BESIDE THE HORRENDOUS SCANDAL, this inescapable responsibility of the bishops leads the ignorant to think abortion is trivial.How will the USCCB be judged historically (not by you or me), down the road, if USA abortion lawmakers (dozens of them!), are being allowed by the USCCB to use the name Catholic to murder-butcher-slaughter babies IN THE OPEN?Hitler’s HIDDEN Holocaust will look banal.Regards,& keep the light on.Guillermo

  • <>But back in the real world a pro-life Obama supporter is functionally indistinguishable from a pro-abortion Obama supporter.<>True, as evidenced by the continued lack of pro-life blogging by ostensibly pro-life Catholics who worked so hard to persuade Catholics to vote for Obama.Indistinguishable indeed, save only for their own protestations that they are pro-life

  • JohnMcG says:

    I think this line of commentary is more likely to lead these people to abandon the current pro-life movement than convince them to turn back.All those harsh words from the bishops before the election worked like a charm didn’t they.We’re going to have to find a new way to talk to people. Calling them quasi-Catholics and not real pro-lifers doesn’t seem to be working.

  • zippy says:

    How can they re-abandon that which they have already abandoned?

  • JohnMcG says:

    Then why engage them at all then?

  • zippy says:

    <>Then why engage them at all then?<>Different people blog and discuss for different reasons. I don’t blog for the purpose of marketing ideas to various constituencies. I’m not saying that that kind of ‘apologetic’ activity is a bad thing; it just isn’t <>my<> thing. My thing (to the extent I have a thing at all) when it comes to blogging and commenting is just writing what I think is true and happens to interest me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Functionally Pro Abortion at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: