Fun with Politicians!

While they're out campaigning...

If you get a chance, here's a fun question to ask your fave politician whose position on abortion is the familiar refrain, "While I personally am opposed to abortion, I don't think the government should be involved in...etc."

I tried the question once in a sit-down with a few reporters and then U.S. Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, after she gave an impassioned speech in the partial-birth abortion debate.  She's personally very opposed to abortion, she said, repeatedly, but just didn't see how the government should have a say in it...etc.  So she vote against banning partial-birth abortion.

You say you are personally, conscientiously opposed to abortion.

"Yes."

Question:  What's so wrong with it?  Just wondering, because you said you personally were against it.  What's wrong with abortion?

Then, literally:  Thirty seconds of "Um...uh...ah...Well, I...uh...ah..."  Thirty seconds.  I could have left for a bite and come back.  On and on.  The other reporters were shifting in their seats.  "Well...I...this...you know...

"Well...I....um..." then finally, "Um...well...you know, I'm Catholic."

The problem with abortion is you're Catholic?

"I'm Catholic."

Anyway, try it sometime!  Ask earnestly.  Maybe they'll have a great answer.  Somehow.

Comments

[T]

Can something be better than awesome? If so, that's what that conversation was--better than awesome. I'm going to have to use some version of it in my class, but regarding uses of money or lawsuits or something.

I could joyfully explore the various ingredients of that conversation for hours. I love that you made her try to explain how abortion could be worthy of her personal condemnation without using terms that would make it worthy of everyone's condemnation. Classic. Even her eventual response--classic. Out of curiousity, did the reporters seem satisfied with her "I'm Catholic" response? That's also got hours of fun in it.

[Note from Brant: They were visibly irked at me. You're not supposed to ask members of deliberative bodies to actually deliberate. They moved right on to something else after that.]

[Troy]

Very nice. I'll have to remember that.

[Texas in Africa]

Can I play devil's advocate for a second?

It's possible to start your view of the abortion debate from two compelling premises: 1) that abortion is the taking of innocent life, and 2) that abortions are going to happen whether it's legal or not. If someone is thinking of it that way, it's perfectly possible to personally (and logically) believe that abortion is morally wrong, but also that the government shouldn't be involved in it because government won't be able to stop them from happening anyway.

Most Christian conservatives, of course, look at those two premises and argue that the first trumps the second by far, and that the fact that abortions will happen doesn't make it ipso facto okay. But perhaps it's unfair to dismiss someone who sees those two premises as more equally compelling, as long as he/she is able to defend the position with a better answer than, "I'm Catholic."

For the record, I think the whole debate points to the need for comprehensive sex education (based purely on the facts as to what works. We have abstinence-focused sex ed in Texas. We also have the highest second-pregnancy teen birthrate in the country.), and for social programs that make it possible for women of limited means to raise a child in health and safety and with the opportunity for a good education. Yes, many upper-class women have abortions for convenience's sake, but among poor women, abortions happen at a much higher rate for those who can't afford a child.

[Note from Brant: The argument used to be, "Is this really human life?"

Science ended that argument. We have ultrasounds. Ballgame. The Big Question is over, and pro-lifers were right.

Point is, she can't allow herself to voice "what's wrong with it", because -- when voiced -- it's obvious government has a legitimate role, indeed.

I think premise #2 is misleading, but the overall point is that it's...uncomfy?...to say, "Well, okay, it's taking human life, but government shouldn't have a role in that."

But yeah, you're allowed to play devil's advocate, totally. No worries. Hopefully, I'm making sense here...]

[euphrony]

Brant, has anyone ever told you that you have a very cruel streak in you?

[Brady]

Reminds me of when Bill Clinton used to say in debates, "I believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."
To which I would always say, "if it should be rare, why?" And if the answer is that it should be rare because it ends a human life, then why should it be kept safe, or legal?

[Andrew]

If we're playing the morality game, the whole "it's the taking of an innocent life," answer still leaves some pretty gaping holes, most prominently the question of why taking a life that is inconvenient to me would be morally wrong. Of course, if Brant had then followed up with this Chesterton/Lewis question, he probably would have been promptly committed to a mental institution.

I'm glad we've at least seen the ridiculousness of the "it's going to happen whether we like it or not" argument, which is silly considering murders, robberies and sexual/mental/physical abuse will happen, but that doesn't make it OK.

But yeah, admitting that abortion is "the taking of an innocent life" would then warrant governmental involvement, don't you think?

[amy]

Yikes, premise number two could be applied to about a million different things! Though I understand your point.

[anon]

So why doesn't the logic of "1) that abortion is the taking of innocent life, and 2) that abortions are going to happen whether it's legal or not" suggest that murder should be legal? I mean, it's the taking of innocent life, too, and it happens regardless of whether it's legal. Heck, make murder legal and give it an orderly process, and you'd probably cut down on collateral damage. But we don't do that, because it's a stupid argument.

[T]

Not-so-side-note: The extent of my delight over this conversation Brant had wasn't primarily due to it being a logical pro-life victory, as good as that might be. In fact, it might of spoken better of me if that were the case. Rather, I am a lawyer and a Christian and a little odd. I dislike illogical thinking and/or deceptive advertising, especially by people who make policy decisions. Therefore, I thoroughly enjoyed seeing the 'logic' this government official was using to distinguish her "personal" view of reality from her "public" one as the absurdity that it is (despite its wide use in all kinds of policy issues, not just abortion).

[Joanna Martens]

"The fear of man brings a snare" Prov. 29:25

and a dumb answer.

[Rich]

Dude, that's great! I will definitely hang onto that.

Good stuff here. I tell people about your "I'm looking for a presidential candidate..." post all the time. Thanks for provoking thought with a good dose humor!

[Bob Sacamento]

Texas in Africa said: "(based purely on the facts as to what works. We have abstinence-focused sex ed in Texas. We also have the highest second-pregnancy teen birthrate in the country.)"

I don't know about Texas specifically, and I'm not sure exactly what "second-pregnancy teen birthrate" is, but nationally, the stats are pretty clear: Abstinence ed is not the magic bullet alot of conservative parents want to believe it is, but it does to some degree keep kids from having sex before marriage, and it definitely leads them to postpone their first sexual encounters by a year or two and to limit the number of their subsequent partners. This definitely decreases the number of teen pregnancies far better than any education about birth control methods has been demonstrated to do, and makes for better relationships when the little tykes are finally ready for a lifelong marriage commitment.

BTW, Texas is one of the biggest states we have. Is that stat you quoted per capita or absolute numbers? If absolute numbers, it doesn't mean much.

[John]

This kind of thinking is why I like you. -JH

[Da Bears Fan]

What is sad is that if the Ms. Moseley-Braun really believed that, she would have called for the reversal of Roe v. Wade and let the States decide. But then again, she was not a very good bookkeeper either.

[Jay H]

Brant wrote, in an inline reply to someone else's comment: The argument used to be, "Is this really human life?"

See, to my understanding, that was never actually the argument. At least not where Roe v Wade was concerned. But it's possible that whoever told me that was wrong, or that I'm misremembering.

[Note from Brant: Yep, that was the argument.

Certainly, there've been others, like, say, just how big of a disaster Roe v. Wade is as law, etc. But that was the central argument. Roe v. Wade doesn't address, as I recall, the "Is it human life?" issue, but that's the debate. The majority opinon in Roe v. Wade is embarrassing, and pro-choice law professors can agree with that.

You don't remember that whole, "Does life begin at conception?" debate?

Since that one's over, though, we moved on to "Well, there are other issues, so..." and Singer-esque arguments regarding autonomy, new debates about what constitutes formerly obvious "personhood", etc.

Naomi Wolf and other feminists have even publicly thrown in the towel on the human life issue. They'd rather we now see it as a necessary evil. Again, it's fair to ask, "What's so evil about it?" at the risk of exposing that argument for what it is.]