Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Abort Mission

With the hullabaloo over Obama's remarks on abortion at Notre Dame's commencement, it's interesting to note a predictable inconsistency. While a recent survey says that the majority of Americans consider themselves "pro-life", a significant number of those also support the death penalty. Given the number of protesters who interrupted the President's commencement address on Sunday, where was this righteous indignation at any of President Bush's speeches? Where are the pro-lifers protesting the thousands of US troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Anti-choice advocates have fooled themselves into believing that "pro-life" is confined to the abortion issue. Nope. Doesn't work that way. You don't get a pass by making a distinction between children and adults. It's PRO-life and if you acquiesce to a grey area on the subject, then the issue of a pro-choice President getting an honorary degree from a Catholic university is moot. It's a football farm, not the Vatican.


Anonymous said...

Ok, I’ll bite!
I must respectfully disagree with you on a series of inconsistencies in your rant here. First of all, are you upset because they protested Obama’s presence, or because they protested the Pro-life issue? President Bush did, in-fact, have many, many instances of righteously indignant protesters at his public speeches and appearances. The Pink lingerie protesters at the 2004 Republican convention at Madison Square Garden come to mind. The July 4th, naturalization ceremony at Monticello in 2008 in which Bush was interrupted several times, and I could go on and on. These were anti-war protesters. This brings me to my next point of contention. Are not anti-war protesters, in-fact pro-lifers? So to answer your rhetorical question of where are these pro-lifers protesting the thousands of US troops who have heroically made the greatest sacrifice anyone could ever ask, I would say they’ve been everywhere Alan! There have been literally THOUSANDS of anti-war (aka pro-life) demonstrations since the war(s) began. Between 6-3-2003 and 4-12-2003 36 million people took part in anti-war demonstrations in over 3000 different organized protests worldwide. And you are absolutely correct; abortion is NOT the only pro-life issue. It’s abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, and unjust wars. All of that. And I really don’t know where you get your data to make the claim that people make a distinction between babies and adults? That is an argument based, in my opinion, on emotion, not data. And lastly, if Notre Dame is a Football farm then they need to try some new fertilizer because right now they have a lot of manure!!
John – Rockford, IL

Alan Cox said...

I have no problem with protest; dissent is at the heart of free speech. I'm more intrigued at the dichotomy within those who qualify themselves as pro-life, yet support the death penalty. While "pro-life" and "anti-war" are indeed the same semantically, intellectually, and morally, they are not regarded as the same in political discourse. Anti-imperialism is the core of most anti-war sentiment, while the pro-life movement seems to be concerned only with unborn human life, rather than the "sanctity" of life overall. The most common explanation for this cognitive dissonance being, "unborn children don't have a choice, death-row inmates have made theirs." A logical conclusion, but hardly "pro-life". The statistical (and anecdotal) distinction comes from the fact that military families are largely conservative and Christian, fine things both. But the intersection of those belief systems creates an insoluble argument.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Cox! First, I'd like to say I I was an avid listener during your time in Pittsburgh, and I think I can fairly speak for most in the region - we miss your presence.

I will also respectfully disagree. This is obviously a very bloated issue, so I'll try to keep it focused to your word-selection argument. I don't know if I can think of more bastardized word as "pro-choice." Now, you will probably going to attack me as being a self-righteous punk - but, the word "choice" is where I take issue. Look - let's jump the impending hypocrisy - I'll handle it first. I, myself, have not ALWAYS acted in the most responsible manner. In fact, I'll say I have been borderline reckless at times. That being said, sexual activity inherently COULD invoke natural occurrences. There is a "choice" made here. Well, actually, there are many choices made here: a) to have sex, b) with/without protection, c) correctly/incorrectly. Those are just 3 off the top of my head...there may be more. If I have sex with a girl and I contract an STD...where were my choices? And here we are, limiting this conversation to sex while really, it can be extended to all aspects of life. Choice is a matter of responsibility, not reaction.

My point is, "pro-choice" has also been monopolized into an grandiose idea bereft of moral impunity.

What would like "Pro-Lifers" to be called? Is there something you feel would be more accurate? I certainly DO NOT feel like "Pro-Choice" does hits the accuracy threshold either!
Brian - Homer City, PA