No deal, Rudy

Catholic Online ^ | 3/6/2007

[markomalley]

They are saying that the next GOP presidential candidate might very well be a pro-abortion Republican who promises not to push that issue and is strong on other issues.

They hope that pro-lifers will “be reasonable,” not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and go along quietly.

We won’t.

Republicans and Democrats in 1980 took radically different approaches to the right to life. Republicans wrote into their party platform that all abortions should be outlawed. Democrats wrote into their party platform that not only should abortion be legal, but families should be forced to pay for others’ abortions through their taxes.

Democratic leaders have been utterly committed to their party platform. But there’s a movement afoot for Republicans to shrug off this plank of the party platform altogether, and give a pro-abortion politician the reins of the party and, they hope, the White House.

In particular, Rudy Giuliani has become a favorite for president of conservative talk-show hosts, and pro-war and tough-on-crime Republicans. He’s also way ahead in polls like Newsweek’s, though it’s anyone guess what such polls mean so early in the process.

The way the pro-Rudy argument goes is this: For the past three decades, social conservatives have had the luxury of insisting on purity in the Republican Party. Their clout was such that any candidate had to undergo a “forced conversion” before running for national office. But 9/11 changed that. Now, extremist Islam and the war on terror are such all-consuming issues, and we can’t be so caught up with abortion anymore.

Since Giuliani is committed to the war on terror and is a great crisis manager with a track record rooting out the gangs of New York, we shouldn’t demand that he be pro-life, but instead we should be willing to make a deal.

Rudy’s deal: He’ll promise not to push the pro-abortion agenda, and he’ll nominate judges in the mold of Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Pro-lifers in the Republican Party in return would support him, but keep insisting that the party stay pro-life, and fight our fiercest pro-life battles at the state level, where they belong.

That seems like a good deal, at first blush. We’re well aware that “forced conversions” to the pro-life fold are far from the ideal. Think of the candidacy of Bob Dole in 1996. And it is true that the fight against judicial tyranny is an immense front in the battle for the right to life. Transforming the courts is a prerequisite to victory elsewhere.

But what dooms the deal from the start is the fact that it totally misunderstands what pro-lifers care about in the first place.

When they ask us to “be reasonable” and go along with a pro-abortion leader, they assume that there is something unreasonable about the pro-life position to start with.

We’re sorry, but we don’t see what is so unreasonable about the right to life. We’ve seen ultrasounds, we’ve named our babies in the womb, we’ve seen women destroyed by abortion. What looks supremely unreasonable to us is that we should trust a leader who not doesn’t only reject the right to life but even supports partial-birth abortion, which is more infanticide than abortion.

We also see the downside of Rudy’s deal. If pro-lifers went along, we’d soon find out that a pro-abortion Republican president would no longer preside over a pro-life party. The power a president exerts over his party’s character is nearly absolute. The party is changed in his image. He picks those who run it and, both directly and indirectly, those who enter it.

Thus, the Republicans in the 1980s became Reaganites. The Democrats in the 1990s took on the pragmatic Clintonite mold. Bush’s GOP is no different, as Ross Douthat points out in “It’s His Party” in the March Atlantic Monthly.

A Republican Party led by a pro-abortion politician would become a pro-abortion party. Parents know that, when we make significant exceptions to significant rules, those exceptions themselves become iron-clad rules to our children. It’s the same in a political party. A Republican Party led by Rudy Giuliani would be a party of contempt for the pro-life position, which is to say, contempt for the fundamental right on which all others depend.

Would a pro-abortion president give us a pro-life Supreme Court justice? Maybe he would in his first term. But we’ve seen in the Democratic Party how quickly and completely contempt for the right to life corrupts. Even if a President Giuliani did the right thing for a short time, it’s likely the party that accepted him would do the wrong thing for a long time.

Would his commitment to the war on terror be worth it? The United States has built the first abortion businesses in both Afghanistan and Iraq, ever. Shamefully, our taxes paid to build and operate a Baghdad abortion clinic that is said to get most of its customers because of the pervasive rape problem in that male-dominated society. And that happened under a pro-life president. What would a pro-abortion president do?

The bottom line: Republicans have made inroads into the Catholic vote for years because of the pro-life issue. If they put a pro-abortion politician up for president, the gains they’ve built for decades will vanish overnight.

[red irish]

Is that really true? I hope not! It makes me sick,sick,sick!

[red irish]

You mean like what John the Baptist did? And what did Jesus say about him? But he did lose his head. But I am sure he is better off for it.

[red irish]

What is your deal? Man are you like this all the time?

[red irish]

Trying to compare abortion to the death penalty is nonsense. Everyone knows when someone is convicted and given the death penalty it never ends there. And if they did get convicted they went through a trial and there was an investigation. In other words they were defended. Hardly what happens to an unborn baby. And how many people have died from the death penalty? Certainly not millions and not every day for whatever reason. And when they are put to death there is always so much concern to be sure they don't suffer. Give me a break! If given the death penalty they DID something terrible but still have recourse to appeal and to appeal and to appeal. You know like what happens in California.

[Aquinasfan]

There is an opinion according to which a human becomes a human not even at birth, but only at reaching the age of reason.

The person who holds this opinion is unreasonable. May I kill him?

There are lots of opinions out there. Some of them are false. Some are evil. And some, like this, are both.

Is the degree of a human being's personhood proportionate to his reasoning ability? Is a logician's life of greater value than that of a sophomore in college?

Age 7 is the traditional "age of reason." Can we justly murder non-persons under the age of reason?

[Aquinasfan]

Irrationality is "I have two [or more] courses of action, A and B. In my opinion, B is better than A, therefore I will do A"].

That's true, but you're missing a crucial point. Suppose that I have two courses of action before me, binge drinking and moderation in drinking. I know that it's better for my overall health to drink in moderation. But instead, because I so love the pleasure of drinking, I choose to drink myself to death. In this case, I am choosing the apparent good over the objective good.

No one chooses against what he perceives as good, but this does not mean that he is acting rationally, since he is acting against right reason.

The Goodness and Malice of the Internal Act of the Will

[Aquinasfan]

There is an opinion according to which a human becomes a human not even at birth, but only at reaching the age of reason.

Did you look at the photos of the aborted babies that I posted in #483? You haven't commented on them. Are you afraid to look at what you're advocating?

The last abortion advocate I debated with here was afraid to look at the photos.

[narses]

[Blackirish]

As long as appoint constitutionalists to the bench I'm fine with Rudy.

However I can't stand the current crew of fiscally liberal/social conservatives like you who are quite willing to bankrupt future generations.

[GSlob]

There is no apparent vs. objective good in your example. In your example your love of "pleasure of drinking" pushes the binge drinking value [for you] into the designation of 'greater good". So, naturally, and pretty logically, you choose the greater good over the lesser one. In your value system, however deranged it could be or appear, you will always be entirely logical- you have evolved that way. The only exceptions are accidents, and one could even make the same argument about the involuntary actions [I force you to drink at gunpoint. You do not want or like to drink, but you do not want to die either - and naturally and logically, you choose the lesser evil, aka the greater good, and drink].
And as for your other post - yep, I saw the pictures. No emotional reaction of any significance on my part.

[ZULU]

Vote Duncan Hunter.

Pro-life, anti-illegal invaders, pro-Second Amendment, pro-America in internatiopnal trade, and a man with a strong military background.

[steve-b]

I think most folks here would never believe what exactly drives the underlying resentment of the U.S. among a lot of the people in these countries.

Losers and failures always resent winners. That's part of the mental attitude that made them losers and failures in the first place.

[Aquinasfan]

There is no apparent vs. objective good in your example. In your example your love of "pleasure of drinking" pushes the binge drinking value [for you] into the designation of 'greater good".

That's why it's an apparent good. In reality, objectively, life is a greater good than the pleasure of drinking, since the pleasure of drinking is impossible without life.

It is possible for people to choose the apparent good over even the known objective good. This happens every day, and it's called moral evil or sin.

So, naturally, and pretty logically, you choose the greater good over the lesser one.

The apparent good, not the greater good. Life is the greater good, since pleasure of any kind is altogether impossible without it.

In your value system, however deranged it could be or appear, you will always be entirely logical- you have evolved that way.

Logic is the basis of all reasoning. It doesn't vary from person to person. If it did, interpersonal communication would be impossible.

The only exceptions are accidents, and one could even make the same argument about the involuntary actions [I force you to drink at gunpoint. You do not want or like to drink, but you do not want to die either - and naturally and logically, you choose the lesser evil, aka the greater good, and drink].

This would be logical, contrary to your prior example. I would be choosing the lesser evil --drunkenness over death.

And as for your other post - yep, I saw the pictures. No emotional reaction of any significance on my part.

FYI, you come across as a monster.

Regardless, I wasn't interested in your emotional reaction to the photos but whether or not you regard these infants as human beings.

[streetpreacher]

I don't have any illusions about convincing single issue pro-gun, or single issue pro-life, or single issue pro-family voters that Rudy is "their guy".

Boy, all of those "single" issues sure add up. Kind of like Juliani's marriages. They weren't really multiple marriages. They were just "single" ones in succession.

[GSlob]

All "goods" are apparent, since all value systems are conventional, individual, and even are time and circumstances dependent [when inebriated, you will see and value the things a bit, or a lot, differently from how you would do it in a sober state]. And even using the logic incoherency to weed the value systems out is rather iffy.

[Aquinasfan]

All "goods" are apparent,

Including this belief, which is good, right? So then this belief is an apparent good, and not one that conforms to objective reality (if in fact reality exists at all?)

Goodness is convertible with being. Therefore, your claim is that goodness, or being, or reality is apparent, which is contradictory.

since all value systems are conventional, individual, and even are time and circumstances dependent

You have knowledge of all value systems? You know that they are all defined by convention or subjective opinion? What about the idea that good is to be done and evil avoided? Is that an objective truth or a subjective belief?

[Lurker]

I'll never forget either.

Rudy want to force me to pay for someones abortion in direct violation of the Hyde Amendment.

Rudy is a fraud.

L

[GSlob]

I am an atheist, and thus in my reference frame your [religious] one is deranged. [And I fully expect reciprocity here]. The statement that all "goods" are apparent in their nature is not even judgeable in terms of being a "good" in itself or not. It is a statement which merely forms a part of a certain value system methodology. It is a methodological tool, and as such it is value-neutral. If the methodology is logically self consistent, and if it allows for building a system with a modicum of explanatory and predictive power with regard to more mundane things and situations, that's all I'm asking from it. And the whole methodology for building a system, or the system itself, is not a "good", greater or lesser. It is a tool, more or less useful, and allowing potential access to "goods". "A good" notion could apply only to some of its applications, and of these some are greater goods than others. Capacity to explain, understand, and predict is "a good".
The following true story is an illustration of advanced application of such a value system:
At my former workplace they were conducting an executive search for a "sweep" - a senior VP. The large sweep's office stood empty for something like a good part of a year, and nobody knew who or when would come to occupy it. A couple months before they found their sweep, I had predicted to my coworkers the nameplate to be put on that office door. I assumed a wild facial expression of prophets from bad movies, stretched my hands towards that door, defocused my gaze, and muttered: "I see it... I see it... GREEDY A-HOLE!" Everyone laughed. Couple months later they found their sweep, and everyone had to stop laughing. A year later they had to squeeze him out -he proved to be too much even for them!
No, I was not on the search committee. But what I knew was that the sweep would be chosen on the basis of conformity to the existing corporate culture [which I knew, and knew only too well], and that was sufficient for the prediction.

[nopardons]

I'm not going to be purged and I'm not anything at all like Arator. For you to compare me with a rabid pitchforker, makes me think that you were once one of them.

As for your juvenile name calling, that proves just what and who you are and nothing at all about me.

[Aquinasfan]

I am an atheist, and thus in my reference frame your [religious] one is deranged. [And I fully expect reciprocity here]. The statement that all "goods" are apparent in their nature is not even judgeable in terms of being a "good" in itself or not. It is a statement which merely forms a part of a certain value system methodology. It is a methodological tool, and as such it is value-neutral. If the methodology is logically self consistent, and if it allows for building a system with a modicum of explanatory and predictive power with regard to more mundane things and situations, that's all I'm asking from it.

Is this system truly good, (i.e, conforms to objective reality) or is it just something you're "asking from it." If the latter, why should anyone else care? If the former, you're assuming that that which is good is that which conforms with reality --that truth is good.

And the whole methodology for building a system, or the system itself, is not a "good", greater or lesser. It is a tool, more or less useful,

Something is useful insasmuch as it serves an end --a good. Utility assumes goodness and end.

...and allowing potential access to "goods".

You're using the term good, so please provide me with your definition of this term. Otherwise, I don't know what you're referring to.

The essence of true goodness is that it is convertible with being, oneness, truth and beauty. In another sense, a thing is good which lacks defect --a thing that is true to its form (in the Aristotelian sense).

"A good" notion...

"Notion" also needs to be defined. Is a notion a secretion of brain chemicals? How would chemicals in my brain conform with external reality? If my thought reduces to matter in motion, how would it be possible for me to know with certainty that an external reality even exists?

...could apply only to some of its applications, and of these some are greater goods than others. Capacity to explain, understand, and predict is "a good".

Why are these things "good" (whatever "good means)? Are these things truly "better" than inexplicability, incomprehension, and unpredictability? How do you know that?

In fact, these things are truly good, since truth is convertible with good, and the good of the intellect is knowledge and truth. Truth and knowledge are its proper object.

Why a bunch of chemicals in my brain would care about truth, or even know what truth is, is a mystery to me.

The following true story is an illustration of advanced application of such a value system: At my former workplace they were conducting an executive search for a "sweep" - a senior VP. The large sweep's office stood empty for something like a good part of a year, and nobody knew who or when would come to occupy it. A couple months before they found their sweep, I had predicted to my coworkers the nameplate to be put on that office door. I assumed a wild facial expression of prophets from bad movies, stretched my hands towards that door, defocused my gaze, and muttered: "I see it... I see it... GREEDY A-HOLE!" Everyone laughed. Couple months later they found their sweep, and everyone had to stop laughing. A year later they had to squeeze him out -he proved to be too much even for them! No, I was not on the search committee. But what I knew was that the sweep would be chosen on the basis of conformity to the existing corporate culture [which I knew, and knew only too well], and that was sufficient for the prediction.

Not sure what your point is.

You need to think more deeply atheism and materialism. There are logical consequences to the false notion that reality reduces to matter in motion, consequences that few atheists ever consider, but consequences that make materialism self-refuting.