Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...
Posted on 01/22/2007 12:01:00 AM PST by EternalVigilance
National security v. national identity
Let's say a masked gunman is testily aiming an automatic weapon at two helpless hostages — an able-bodied man, and a trembling toddler. "Please, I beg of you," the grown-up implores, hands held high in the air, "if you must mow somebody down, by all means, make it him. I ardently hope that neither one of us has to die, but if push comes to shove, well, frankly . . ."
Now, what kind of person would take such a stance? What kind of a country would? And yet, with the 34th anniversary of the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision upon us, that is approximately the attitude being urged upon those Americans still concerned about the survival of our democratic republic at all — not by liberals, mind you, but by some of conservatism's leading spokespersons. I'll explain.
Any regular listener to Alan Colmes' counterpart in his various media incarnations is by now well acquainted with what might be termed the Hannity Doctrine: the contention that the war on terror must be admitted as superceding all other political priorities. One need not disagree that liberty is to be vigorously defended to disagree with the right-to-life-related conclusion this popular talk show host and others are drawing about it: that the attacks on our country by radical Islamists changed not only what Americans ought to be concerned about, but somehow, the very essence of what our nation is and has always been. Is Sean really saying this? He is, if we think through the implications of his 2008 presidential race philosophy.
What does it mean to say that conservatives ought to support any candidate of any party, with any voting record on other issues, as long as s/he is strong on national defense? It means that the primacy of the right to life over the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been submerged and ignored — not by foreign enemies, but by America's own defenders. Ours is the land defined by the Declaration, and that inspired historical landmark recognizes that everyone is "endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights," in a certain undeniable order. Yet, with all due respect to Jefferson and his confreres, do we really need the guidance of political genius to tell us that the right to live in freedom hinges upon the right to live in the first place, and not the other way around?
The most basic of our founding documents appeals to what it divine and immutable, then, in accord with what is natural and reasonable. That is why it is called a "declaration," and not a "thesis," or an "editorial." For this reason neither Osama bin Laden, nor Nancy Pelosi, nor a multitude of misled voters, nor a gaggle of oligarchs in black robes, nor Sean Hannity himself, can change what American principle objectively is. Despite what the manipulators of our political process try to tell us, national security is not the rival of national identity. The two are partners, with one of them (hint: not the one Mr. Hannity alleges) necessarily claiming a surpassing degree of logical, moral, political, and spiritual importance. Does one burn down one's own house, in an attempt to thwart a potential arsonist? Divest one's self of all assets to become safe from a feared robbery attempt? Then why on earth would we accept the notion that we must deprioritize defending the right to life if we wish to begin effectively defending the right to liberty; that we must voluntarily quit being Americans ourselves, in order to keep radical Islam from abolishing Americanism?
Sean says, to his credit, that he is still pro-life, despite his willingness to back politicians who don't "agree" with him on the "domestic issues." (Abortion is a worldwide phenomenon claiming logarithmically higher numbers of victims than terrorism ever has, so why it is considered to be something contained within our particular coastlines, I have never understood.) All he can possibly mean by this, however, is that he has not stopped to think through to the conclusion of his own commentary. To claim that the cause of overturning Roe has to move to the back of the bus, now that the war on terror has officially begun, is to say that those of us who have already had a chance to see the sun and feel the free breeze on our faces have more of a claim to continue doing so than those waiting in the womb have to take their turn at all. It is to say that the protection of our own interests is of greater urgency than the protection of theirs.
This is not a "pro-life" position, howsoever modified. This is nothing but the core pro-choice contention in its vilest, most prejudicial form. Grown-ups of all ages know indubitably that it is their special privilege to prioritize the weaker among us — either literally, as many members of our military and other security forces do on a daily basis, or sacrificially, as every parent, and teacher, and mentor, and civil servant (etc.) does in a whole plethora of ways. At least, that is what grown-up Americans have always believed and done.
For the record, it must be noted that Sean Hannity is far from the only one pushing this new and illegitimate "conservative" system of "single-issue" voting. Just the other day, for instance, Roger Hedgecock was admonishing Rush's audience to wake up and smell the post-9/11 coffee. Sean just happens to be the highest profile member of this mentality. How many more people he and others will be able to convince remains to be seen. It may prove enough, arguably, to sweep a RINO team into the White House in two years' time. If that happens, it will be a black, black day; I for one would rather see America martyred than see her commit the suicide of moral cowardice. But if we pull together in insistence not only on the right to liberty but also on the right to life which undergirds it, refusing the erzatz political "necessity" of pitting the one against the other, we may not finally have to witness either of those unspeakable outcomes. In the last analysis, then, the war on terror has only made the cause of overturning Roe v. Wade even more urgent — certainly, not less so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helen M. Valois is a homemaker and mom currently residing in the northwoods of Wisconsin. She has a Master's Degree in Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville, and is a member of the MI (Militia Immaculatae) movement founded by St. Maximilian Kolbe. Her articles and book reviews have appeared in a number of publications since that time.
and amazingly - many pro-life evangelicals - BOUGHT IT! they actually believe Casey is going to lead the charge for a pro-life SCOTUS nominee.
That's a very interesting take.
Throwing Someone overboard Who can walk on water never works anyway. ;-)
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on Pro-Life or Catholic threads.
Why is it assumed that Rudy or McCain can win and Brownback or Hunter cannot? Does that mean the pro abort repubs will not vote for social conservative? Thereby letting Hillary win?
Your tagline is so true! When the attacks on 9/11 happened, a friend mentioned how awful that 3000 people were killed.(which it was) I told him that abortion kills that many every day of the year. To me, that goes way beyond awful.
The pro-life cause can be enormously damaged not only if suppressed for the sake of national unity in wartime, but also if attached to politicians favoring unnecessary wars abroad and overbearing wartime powers at home.
How true :)
because the republican base, on its own, cannot elect a president.
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...
Brilliant graphics! Thank you for posting them!
See this thread.
Touche.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on Pro-Life or Catholic threads.
Amen.
Kudos. I've always found his buddy-buddy talk with Guiliani a little disturbing (not to mention the amazing softballs he manages to lob Guiliani).
This calculus on Justices is exactly right.
George Bush will not have the opportunity permanently to replace another Justice. Were any Justice to die (retirement is inconceivable) during the balance of the Bush Administration, the Democrats will vote down any replacement. A recess appointee could serve only for a year or so.
Every Democratic candidate for President is fully committed to appointing Supreme Court Justices who are vocally and unequivocally committed to maintaining Roe v. Wade. Such appointees will be confirmed. By contrast, all three of the so-called "moderate" Republicans is likely to look for anti-Roe justices -- McCain and Romney out of pro-life sentiment and Giuliani out of a commitment to judicial restraint. Now, of course, the sad history of Republican appointees means that they may end up with a pro-Roe appointee despite their best efforts, but that's no different from Brownback or Hunter.
Not only do we have the retirement of Stevens and (likely) Ginsburg, we also will probably lose one of Scalia or Thomas, who given weight and race, respectively, are moving into prime male mortality years.
Thus electing a Democrat in 2008 will result in, by 2012, the pro-Roe majority shifting from (as it is now) 5 Justices of whom none is younger than his mid-60s, 2 are in their 70s and one in his 80s to 6 Justices of whom 3 are in their 40s and 3 who are in their early 70s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.