Is it Possible to be Both Pro-Life and Still Support Roe v. Wade?
Timothy Sexton
June 28, 2007
I’ve always considered those who call themselves pro-life but then are willing to make exceptions in cases of incest or rape to be far more reprehensible that even the radical, though non-violent, pro-lifers who want to outlaw abortion in all cases. After all, isn’t making those exceptions the same thing as saying those unborn babies should share the guilt of committing the crime? It isn’t the baby’s fault it is the product of rape or incest, so why shouldn’t it receive the same protection as any other fetus? Calling yourself pro-life and then agreeing to the murder of a fetus for reasons it had nothing to do with is quite possibly the most hypocritical stance on any political issue I can think of. But then I got to thinking about those GOP candidates who have to tiptoe around the issue of abortion in order to get nominated.
With the exception of Rudy Giuliani who got outed on his pro-choice stance, all the GOP front runners say they are pro-life. That includes Mitt Romney, who until he figured out that he was going to run for President had been pro-choice. At the same time, John McCain, Fred Dalton Thompson and the other two also insist they have no interest in repealing Roe v. Wade. This, of course, has been the official stance of every serious GOP candidate for the past two decades. They all oppose abortion, but aren’t interesting in tampering with Roe v. Wade. There is a serious disconnect here that needs to be addressed. Pro-life candidates always make sure they use that pro-life description; you never hear them call themselves anti-abortion. They do this to make sure that they appear to hold human life sacred. Yet, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land when it comes to keeping abortion legal. If it was overturned, every abortion in the country would be a crime. In other words, supporting the existence of Roe v. Wade is the same thing as supporting the murder of an unborn child, at least as abortion is defined according to the pro-life movement. So, therefore, whether you personally condone abortion or not, by supporting the continuance of Roe v. Wade you are supporting the continued murders of unborn babies.
Or am I missing something here? The stance taken by the GOP candidates is that they support the right to life and are opposed to abortion. Yet at the same time, they absolve themselves from the responsibility of taking steps to remove the only barrier in this country outlawing abortion. You get rid of Roe v. Wade, you get rid of legal abortions. Isn’t that what being pro-life really means? Not to give lip service to being against abortion, but that you honestly believe that abortion is murder and should be stopped? So I ask my titular question again: Is it possible to be both pro-life and still support Roe v. Wade?
I don’t think it’s possible. I don’t see how it is any more possible than saying you think the war in Iraq is a bad thing and then voting to send more American troops to die there. Those two beliefs cannot co-exist. You can’t say you believe in your heart that abortion is murder and then turn around and say you have no plans to undo the legal basis that makes that murder legal. What if a candidate were to say he believes that it is wrong to commit premeditated murder, but he didn’t think there should be a law against it? You would instantly recognize that as either insane or a cynical political ploy, right? Yet here we have one GOP candidate after another getting up and professing his belief abortion is murder, but he doesn’t believe there should be a law against it. And if you are against abortion, you have to believe it is murder, otherwise why would you be against it? There is no other valid reason.
It is time to call the Republican candidates on this one. We all know that they are only saying they are pro-life to win the support of the Religious Right. To truly be pro-life is not merely to personally believe abortion is a bad thing, everybody wishes there was no need for abortion. To truly call yourself pro-life is to commit yourself to doing whatever you can to end it. And nobody can do more to end abortions than the President of the United States. At least, the way the office has been executed by Pres. Bush. That is why I have far greater respect to those anti-abortion supporters who don’t make room for exceptions. Either it is murder or it is not and it is never the baby’s fault. Any political candidate who say he or she is pro-life, regardless of party affiliation, needs to come out and admit part of their agenda is to overthrow Roe v. Wade. And if it is not, then they need to quit calling themselves pro-life because to do so is the height of political hypocrisy.
With the exception of Rudy Giuliani who got outed on his pro-choice stance, all the GOP front runners say they are pro-life. That includes Mitt Romney, who until he figured out that he was going to run for President had been pro-choice. At the same time, John McCain, Fred Dalton Thompson and the other two also insist they have no interest in repealing Roe v. Wade. This, of course, has been the official stance of every serious GOP candidate for the past two decades. They all oppose abortion, but aren’t interesting in tampering with Roe v. Wade. There is a serious disconnect here that needs to be addressed. Pro-life candidates always make sure they use that pro-life description; you never hear them call themselves anti-abortion. They do this to make sure that they appear to hold human life sacred. Yet, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land when it comes to keeping abortion legal. If it was overturned, every abortion in the country would be a crime. In other words, supporting the existence of Roe v. Wade is the same thing as supporting the murder of an unborn child, at least as abortion is defined according to the pro-life movement. So, therefore, whether you personally condone abortion or not, by supporting the continuance of Roe v. Wade you are supporting the continued murders of unborn babies.
Or am I missing something here? The stance taken by the GOP candidates is that they support the right to life and are opposed to abortion. Yet at the same time, they absolve themselves from the responsibility of taking steps to remove the only barrier in this country outlawing abortion. You get rid of Roe v. Wade, you get rid of legal abortions. Isn’t that what being pro-life really means? Not to give lip service to being against abortion, but that you honestly believe that abortion is murder and should be stopped? So I ask my titular question again: Is it possible to be both pro-life and still support Roe v. Wade?
I don’t think it’s possible. I don’t see how it is any more possible than saying you think the war in Iraq is a bad thing and then voting to send more American troops to die there. Those two beliefs cannot co-exist. You can’t say you believe in your heart that abortion is murder and then turn around and say you have no plans to undo the legal basis that makes that murder legal. What if a candidate were to say he believes that it is wrong to commit premeditated murder, but he didn’t think there should be a law against it? You would instantly recognize that as either insane or a cynical political ploy, right? Yet here we have one GOP candidate after another getting up and professing his belief abortion is murder, but he doesn’t believe there should be a law against it. And if you are against abortion, you have to believe it is murder, otherwise why would you be against it? There is no other valid reason.
It is time to call the Republican candidates on this one. We all know that they are only saying they are pro-life to win the support of the Religious Right. To truly be pro-life is not merely to personally believe abortion is a bad thing, everybody wishes there was no need for abortion. To truly call yourself pro-life is to commit yourself to doing whatever you can to end it. And nobody can do more to end abortions than the President of the United States. At least, the way the office has been executed by Pres. Bush. That is why I have far greater respect to those anti-abortion supporters who don’t make room for exceptions. Either it is murder or it is not and it is never the baby’s fault. Any political candidate who say he or she is pro-life, regardless of party affiliation, needs to come out and admit part of their agenda is to overthrow Roe v. Wade. And if it is not, then they need to quit calling themselves pro-life because to do so is the height of political hypocrisy.
Print
Email
