One Cheer for Kennedy
Posted by PunchTheBag on 12 January 2005 | 23 responses
I know we should judge actions and not words, but it’s a pretty good day for pro-life forces when Senator Edward Kennedy says the following (emphasis added):
But at the same time, Kennedy said Democratic Sen. John Kerry’s narrow election loss also showed that the party must “recognize issues of deep conscience in policy positions we take.” Referring to abortion, he said Democrats should not yield on a woman’s right to choose, but should also acknowledge that “we are a better society when abortions are rare.”
We on the Right love to pound Kennedy, but he deserves at least a small round of applause for admitting to the obvious.
23 Responses to “One Cheer for Kennedy”
Maybe this compasionate liberalism?
Talk by that fat Catholic is cheap. His actions speak louder than his lies.
All those pro-choicers who have been advocating that abortions should be *less rare* are going to be disappointed that they’ve lost Kennedy.
Oh wait … there aren’t any pro-choicers like that.
The real question isn’t whether abortions should be less rare. It’s whether abortions should be made less rare by denying abortions, or by mitigating the problems that cause women to think abortions are necessary. One side wants the former, the other the latter.
The Roth Report for January 12th
The Roth Report for Wednesday, January 12, 2005: German police target "Islamists"… Iraqi insurgents worried that bin Laden will hijack their rebeillion… TRAIN HORROR: Man mistakenly identified pushed onto train tracks in front of on-c…
The real question isn’t whether murder should be less rare. It’s whether murder should be made less rare by denying people the ability to end another person’s life, or by mitigating the problems that cause people to think murder is necessary.
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Although that was sarcastic of me, there is also a deeper point to make: Pro-lifers think abortions should be banned, and want to help women who find themselves in unplanned pregnancies. Not “or.”
“It’s whether murder should be made less rare by denying people the ability to end another person’s life, or by mitigating the problems that cause people to think murder is necessary.”
This isn’t a perfect example, obviously, but nonetheless it is suggestive: What if there is a certain amount of regulatory failure present in the regime? Conservatives, of all ideologues, know that passing laws doesn’t solve problems. So I think the question of how best to reduce abortions is on the table. And given that the loudest voices from the right continue to be those of abstinence activists, who promote programs that are far, far from effective, there seems to be an “idea gap” that some clever group of thinkers could fill with inventive policies.
I also note that Kennedy’s line is, pretty much, the same as George W. Bush’s.
And as Bill Clinton’s.
Mr Anonymous . . . Did you have to use the epithet “fat Catholic” in your post? Could you not have used “fat Democrat” or “fat liberal” or “fat Senator” to greater effect? Especially in this case, considering the fact that the Catholic Church is, unlike other Christian denominations one could name, staunchly pro-life & has been for 2000 years. (Read the Didache, c. 90-110, for proof.)
Or perhaps referring to Senator Kennedy as a “fat ‘Catholic’” or “fat Cathlic-in-name-only” would have been a better choice since his career Senate voting record has rarely, if ever, reflected the beliefs of the Church he claims fidelity to in regareds to the issue of abortion?
Had, sir or madame, this been Senator Lieberman rather than Kennedy, would you have called him a “skinny Jew” or a “wimpy Kike” or a “twiggy Christ-killer?”
Yeah. Thought not.
Paul,
We don’t outlaw murder because it stops all killings. We outlaw murder because it’s wrong, and then we continue to try to mitigate the remaining causes of murder. I see no reason why the same logic would not apply to abortion. Crisis pregnancy centers, for example, would continue to serve women with unplanned pregnancies.
As you say, I’m sure that some clever people could come up with even better solutions than we have now, but that doesn’t take away from the legitimacy of pro-life activism under the premise that abortion is simply wrong.
OK. I thought about it & I think my word choice was inappropriate & perhaps offensive to some. It it was, I appologize. I do not wish to offend.
Anonymous, if you’re reading this, I suggest you read a book called The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice by Philip Jenkins. Mr Jenkins, who is not Catholic, is a brilliant writer & the book is well worth your time.
Democrats for Life
Last November, I wrote, in this post, “I wish the Democrats would also reconsider their fanaticism for abortion.” One of my commenters said it was the most absurd statement she had ever heard. Oh really? What are the Democrats saying…
“We outlaw murder because it’s wrong”
But this is surely incomplete–we outlaw murder because it’s wrong, and because a) we expect the threat of punishment to have a deterrent effect and/or b) we seek vengeance when that particular moral value is transgressed. There are plenty of moral wrongs that are either not outlawed (i.e., failing to give to charity) or unenforced (i.e., adultery).
The Kennedy Family has long suckered Catholics into voting for them on the basis that Kennedy’s were Catholics. It is part of their brand. The Fat One is yet a Knight of Columbus. His actions speak much louder than his words, words that were elicited only after his fellow Mass Senator was smashed, and the Democrat Party was smashed by LOSING the Catholic vote. As far as the Catholic Church’s abortion position I’d agree but who really is the Catholic Church? Don’t Catholics abort and contracept about as much as anyone else?
Paul,
I don’t mean to be tendentious, but I still don’t see why outlawing abortion would be logically any different than outlawing murder. Your conditions a) and b) would certainly apply to abortion bans. Jailtime and/or license revocations for physicians who perform illegal abortions would serve as both deterrent and vengeance.
As for moral wrongs that are not punished, those are of a considerably less severe nature than killing.
For someone who believes, as pro-choicers do, that a fetus isn’t “alive” or a person in the same sense you and I do, abortion isn’t murder. You may believe that it objectively is, but their actions are not guided by that view, whether it is right or wrong. Thus, b)–the retributive motive–wouldn’t apply. As for the deterrent effect, imprisoning doctors who perform abortions will deter many of them–but on the other hand, it’s not like imprisoning marijuana users has solved the problem of drug abuse. The two are different, of course, but abortions existed long before Roe, and will exist after it, too.
The abortions pre Roe were small numbers. The numbers post Roe were very large ones and remain very large and profitable ones.
So you’re saying that because many people aren’t as strongly opposed to abortion as most people are opposed to murder, the policy aspects won’t play out the same way?
Fair enough. On a national basis, we’re nowhere near the consensus today that it would take to outlaw “abortion-on-demand.” Of course, if Roe were to be overturned, abortion would be decided on a state-by-state basis.
And the state-by-state debate would allow each community to reach a modus vivendi better than the judicial fiat of Roe.
I’ll buy into it when the Dems don’t filibuster a SCOTUS nominee who doesn’t pass the abortion litmus test.
Regarding a SCOTUS filibuster, I say “bring it on.” But let it be a real filibuster. The time is long past for requiring a de facto supermajority for passing anything through the Senate. Let the Democrats find out if America will tolerate them holding up business in the Senate to keep a twice-elected President from appointing justices of his choosing to the high court.
“As far as the Catholic Church’s abortion position I’d agree but who really is the Catholic Church? Don’t Catholics abort and contracept about as much as anyone else?”
Um, so now, Anonymous, you want to hold the members of the RCC to a higher standard? As if they’re not human or capable of sin? Again, read Jenkins’ book. To single out Catholics because they abort & contracept is silly. Heck, they even lie, steal, lust, covet, etc – just like everyone else. You even point out that others do the same. And some of those other are members of various Christian faith communities. And, as I stated above, there are some denominations that actually condone abortion in some cases. Which is better? Just because some Catholics do not follow a teaching of the Church that’s been around as long at the Church has, in no way invalidates that teaching or the Church itself.
Isn’t that why Paul took Peter to task over the subject of circumcision? Re-read Galatians, especially chapter 2.
The RCC’s job is to call sinners to repentence. And never has it claimed to be a Church full of the impeccable. Why shouldn’t Ted Kennedy be a Knight of Columbus? Perhaps through that organization – assuming he attends meetings & actively supports them – he might just come to admit how shocking a crime abortion is & how it damaging it is to society. The KoC are staunchly pro-life, spending quite a lot of donated money a year to bring attention to the evils of abortion &, frankly, I find it interesting that Teddy still considers himself a member. The KoC aren’t going to change their pro-life stance just ‘cos Teddy’s a member & he’s a Democrat! I hope they enjoy substantial donations from Teddy & use all that money toward pro-life causes.
I fail to see how your points make any sense.
It seems that if abortions are going to be considered criminal, then denying social program help to the poor should also be considered criminal.