Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Pro-Life Confusion

In my limited experience with politics, I have been greatly distressed by the duplicity and expediency at the heart of the pro-life movement. But now there is just plain silliness afoot in the ranks. Andrew Sandlin, Mr. Relevance himself, says that Hillary Clinton has modified her abortion position and is "re-positioning for a run at the U. S. presidency" because she is "aware that with the resurgence of Christian faith in the cultural arena, it is no longer likely that a vocal pro-choice (= pro-abortion) candidate can be elected president."

Meanwhile, Gloria Feldt stepped down as president of Planned Murderhood. Wanda Franz, president of the National Right to Life Committee, greeted Feldt's departure with hosannas, hoping that it indicates that abortion supporters think they have lost the battle. Franz says, "Perhaps the clear evidence that the majority of the American people are shifting in a pro-life direction has affected the thinking of the people . . . in the organization."

Despite all of this happy-talk, Scott Richert shows that abortion has risen during the Bush presidency.

Am I missing something?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting to read that abortions actually have risen during the Bush presidency. I used to despair over the fact that Bush had so readily gotten away with having been accorded the "pro-life" label. That was at a time that I felt the need for a kind of "moral ecumenism" of those interested in a politics of the human person as it were. But when one can't fathom the fullness of what it means to be human, that is to say human in all of it's implications, such an "ecumenism" is in any case a hollow reed. So the travesty of Bush's enjoying the "pro-life" label no longer incites me, particularly.

More than his lack of energy respecting the question of abortion, however, the most telling blow Bush ever delivered to serious Christians everywhere occured at the time of his infamous stem-cell compromise in 2001. His decision to fund research on existing embryonic stem-lines, albeit not new ones, crossed a line which can never be retraced. His promises to the Vatican and others notwithstanding, Bush placed the United States irrevocably on the far side of a line separating that which constitutes a healthy and truthful vision of man and that which does not. Until that time our government had not so soiled itself.

The matter of embryonic stem-cell research is so seminal, so critical to Christian social teaching that any failure to comprehend the anthropological and theological questions involved invites disaster. It is for that reason that the support given to the stem-cell compromise at the time of its announcement by the bulk of the Evangelical leadership - the Dobsons, Lands, and Colsons - is particularly reprehensible. If one fails to grasp who and what it is that one seeks to serve, service becomes implausible. A time has come for an abandonment of efforts by Catholics and Reformed Christians to find common ground on social questions with such "leaders" simply because the essential elements leading to agreement on such questions can no longer be presupposed. And this abandonment should occur without regret. There are times in life and politics to accept half a loaf. The stem-cell decision was not one of them.

John Lowell

2:22 PM  
Blogger greasy joan said...

Thank you for posting this. The hypocrisy of this administration bewilders me. My neocon friends are optimistic in the name of "progress" and "a step in the right direction," but I don't think so.

7:59 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home