An analysis about ‘Pro-life’ and the issues…

One thing that simple infuriates me is to hear a Republican claim to be ‘Pro-life’ and care about the sanctity of life. This is complete and utter bullshit. If you are for life, you cannot be fore capital punishment. Ditto for torture and the war in Iraq. If you truly are a person who respects life, the above issues should disgust you just as much if not more than the issue of abortion does. If it doesn’t, then you are not ‘pro-life’. It’s that simple.

Speaking of people who claim to be ‘pro-life’, I’m simple amused whenever I hear people champion John McCain as a true champion for the unborn. Incase you missed it, have a look at McCain’s declaration of being ‘Pro-life’ through and through as he said it at last weekend’s Saddleback Forum:

WARREN: Let’s go into the tough ones. That was just a gimme.

MCCAIN: All right.

WARREN: Let’s deal with abortion. I, as a pastor, have to deal with this all the time, every different angle, every different pain, all of the decisions and all of that. Forty million abortions since Roe v. Wade. Some people, people who believe that life begins at conception, believe that’s a holocaust for many people. What point is a baby entitled to human rights?

MCCAIN: At the moment of conception. (APPLAUSE). I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president. And this presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment. That’s my commitment to you. (3.)

Pro-life for 25 years, eh? Let’s have a look at those years and see what twenty-five years of being Pro-Life looks like to John McCain. According to various sources:

– John McCain fully supported and voted in favor of funding embryonic stem cell research. (1.)

– On August 25, 1999, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that McCain had told its editorial board:

“I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. … But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations. (2.)

Does this sound like a quote you would hear from a staunch ‘Pro-life’ candidate?

– McCain also created/passed McCain-Feingold. This is the law that prevents many groups including pro-life organizations from broadcasting ads that mention a candidate by name 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. (1.)

– On the January 21st, 2001, edition of NBC’s Meet the Press:

JOHN McCAIN: You can’t” overturn Roe v. Wade without “get[ting] a majority of the American citizens to be convinced that there’s great validity to your point of view” because “then it goes back to the states, and then the debate and discussion would take place in the respective 50 states”

TIM RUSSERT: You heard [first lady] Laura Bush say that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned. [Then-Attorney General nominee] John Ashcroft said it’s settled law and that the new president would not seek to overturn it. Is that a good result? Should people across the country say, “We’re not going to overturn Roe v. Wade”?

McCAIN: Well, I think it’s a recognition of reality, number one, and number two is, a lot of us have said for a long time, “We have to change the hearts and minds of the American people. We have to convince them about the sanctity of human life.” That’s the way you win. You’ve got to get a majority of the American citizens to be convinced that there’s great validity to your point of view.

RUSSERT: If you tried to overturn Roe v. Wade without doing that, it would —

McCAIN: You can’t do it. And if you did overturn Roe v. Wade, then it goes back to the states, and then the debate and discussion would take place in the respective 50 states. (2.)

Once again, does this sound like someone who is all for gunning down Roe vs. Wade. This is the second time between 1999 and 2001 where McCain said he doesn’t support overturning Roe Vs. Wade…

– In a debate with George W. Bush in May of 2000, John McCain attacked Bush’s support for the pro-life plank in the Republican Party. McCain actually tried to be the pro-choice candidate during the 2000 Republican primary, not the pro-life choice.

– John McCain has also voted to fund pro-abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood with federal tax dollars. He also voted to use federal tax dollars to support abortion providers overseas as well in other nations. Does this sound like the policy of a pro-life politician?

So once again, when McCain sat there and told Warren and his people that had a 25 year pro-life record in congress… he was doing the same thing he did when he talked about Mother Teresa and crosses in the sand: he was lying. He was pandering to the audience, telling them anything they wanted to hear regardless of what he’s said about the issue in the past which contradicts his current stance.

If elected into office, do you really think that McCain or the Republicans would do anything to actually stop abortion? The real answer to that is no. The so called “pro-life” GOP had full control of the entire federal government for six years, and what did they do to prevent abortion? Two words: absolutely nothing. You’ve have eight years of a self proclaimed “pro-life” President and six years of a “pro-life” GOP in charge of the entire federal government, and not one unborn baby’s life has been saved. Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, and the ‘Pro-life’ movement has made zero gains over the last eight years and this is what happens when you vote for Republicans. They tell you want you want to hear and then they just fun off and do their own thing and not talk to you until it’s time to come back to the polls.

Seriously, how on earth can the Republicans party look pro-life Christians and conservatives in the eye this year and expect anyone to take them and their pro-life stance seriously? They had six years of full control to take care of business and chose to do sweet fuck all. Had they wanted to overturn Roe vs. Wade and end legal abortion-on-demand, they could have already done it… but the chose not to. Why? Because they didn’t want to.

Without abortion, what other issue would they have to get their people to run out to the polls en masse on election day? The GOP have no interest or intent to overturn Roe Vs. Wade beacuse that law and issue is their meal ticket. Without it they’ve got nothing to get their numbers to the booths to vote for them. Republicans having been using the “pro-life” rhetoric as a campaign tool to dupe their people every election year. And it worked every time, so why stop now?

I want to compare that to the comments that were made by Barack Obama during the same Saddleback Forum when he was asked about Abortion:

OBAMA: But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion, because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.

But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they — they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members. And so, for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground. And by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.

WARREN: Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?

OBAMA: I am in favor, for example, of limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother’s health. From the perspective of those who are pro-life, I think they would consider that inadequate, and I respect their views. One of the things that I’ve always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then — and you are consistent in that belief, then I can’t argue with you on that, because that is a core issue of faith for you.

What I can do is say, are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, so that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions. And as an example of that, one of the things that I’ve talked about is how do we provide the resources that allow women to make the choice to keep a child. You know, have we given them the health care that they need? Have we given them the support services that they need? Have we given them the options of adoption that are necessary? That can make a genuine difference.

I’m sure to the average ‘pro-life person that answer isn’t up to par with what they believe, but read that piece again. Even though he disagrees with the crowd he was talking with, that didn’t stop him from offering an olive branch to see if there could be a chance that everyone could get what they want, for both the pro-choice and the pro-life side. That’s at least more than what the GOP has been giving pro-lifers the last eight years, which was a big, fat helping of zero.

Obama was not talking about banning abortion, because that really wouldn’t stop women from getting an abortion. If Roe vs. Wade were overturned tomorrow, it wouldn’t ban abortion, but merely send the issue back down to the states to start the fight all over again. Women would get there abortions via back alleys again or this time an option is available north of the border. Rex Vs. Morganteller, the law that made abortion legal in Canada, will never be overturned and gives women a very clear option that was not available before 1973. So if you are really, really serious about reducing abortions… you have to look beyond Roe vs. Wade and look at the ideas that were presented by Obama during his answer. Education is the key. Educate a child on sex and how to use birth control, and that will limit teens and young women who need to have unwanted pregnancies terminated. You have to pick your battles and determine which is the lesser of two evils: birth control or abortion?

Then one thing that needs to be considered is options. Some believe abortion is the only choice because there are no other options. Perhaps if government set up healthcare and maybe even subsidize daycare for single mothers, it would provide them with the means they need to maybe reconsider something the didn’t want. Adoption regulations have to be eased a bit, especially when it comes to the blatant discrimination against homosexuals. Once again it’s a matter of picking your battles… what would you rather see: babies being killed or gays being parents?

This is the guys of the issue: instead of taking away choices, give women more choices and as usual make it final decision on what happens to their bodies theirs and theirs alone. But logic dictates that the more options one person has, the less likely they are going to take the one you don’t like. So the key to reducing the number of abortions isn’t to take away women’s right to choice, but to expand the amount of choices and options they have. Unlike the progress that was made with a ‘Pro-life’ President and Congress over the last eight years, this plan would actually make a difference and reduce the number. That would create results… something Pro-Lifers haven’t seen in decades.

So a final question to all the pro-life Christians and conservatives: when are you going to stop drinking the GOP kool-aid and tell them where to stick their false pro-life commitments?

Sources:

1. JOHN McCAIN PRO LIFE? WHAT A JOKE! Written by Chuck Baldwin. (August 22, 2008)
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin465.htm

2. Once again, The Politico ignored McCain’s abortion inconsistencies, labeled him “consistently pro-life” (Thu, Feb 22, 2007)
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702220008

3. Saddleback Forum Transcript (August 24th, 2008)
http://monkeycrash.com/2008/08/18/saddleback-forum-transcript/