Skip to main content

A Few Thoughts On Abortion-Agnostic Liberals

Let me start with Mark Shea, and say it like this: I get it. I don't want to be in the GOP tribe, either. I don't like the political culture of deflection. I don't like the notion of pretending that President Trump is a good man, who's misunderstood, or slandered, or whatever people say. I don't like the fact that most serious issues not related to sex are being discussed inside the Democratic Party.

I could go on and on about the GOP, and GOP voters, and that even most thoughts within that coalition strike me as irritable mental gestures in the direction of a philosophy, to borrow a phrase.

Yet I have some truth to share: A human fetus is a person, an innocent person, and killing an innocent person is wrong. Not because Jesus said so, although he does. Any person who loves reason can come to see this truth. We may even convince ourselves that "reproductive choice" is less wrong, because the set of Republican policies related to social support makes the choice to abort more likely (and perhaps it does, in fact).

There's still a lie lurking about: that banning or even restricting abortion does nothing to combat abortion. That cannot be true. We could find the stats about how many abortions there were prior to 1973, and how many there are now. The scale of this genocide puts the lie to this polite fiction.

Now, if you want to have mental seizures all day long about rank-and-file Republicans and their blind spots, fine. I don't care. I'm now an advocate for legitimate social democracy. But I'm not letting Shea, or his left-leaning friends sit in their pleasing delusions. There's nothing immoral--quite the opposite--about banning abortion. Joe Heschmeyer, who wrote the linked post above, sets up the discussion as a sort of false dilemma: social support, or abortion ban?

Why not both? And frankly, perhaps the biggest obstacle to getting this done is the tribal allegiance to the Democratic Party, and that party's slavish devotion to an unobstructed machinery of death. The second biggest obstacle is the tribal allegiance to the Republican Party, and that party's slavish devotion to capitalism, and a fake Cold War binary between capitalism and socialism. We will not turn into the USSR, if we insist on a living wage. We're not a bunch of entitled hippie snowflakes, to forthrightly consider that we are damaging this planet, and that we must act urgently.

I'd run as a Democrat, myself, if you made me choose. But we all know who greases the skids, don't we? They've said they don't want pro-lifers in their party. The closest thing to a social democratic party in the US doesn't want to even forthrightly reckon with the fact that killing children in the womb is heinously wrong. The party that had a death-grip on faithful Catholics for generations can't even give a voice to perhaps the most vital teaching (literally) in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

At least Gov. Bel Edwards hasn't been exiled yet. I'll bet he never becomes a major presidential candidate. I dare the Democrats to prove me wrong. Bob Casey, Jr. needs to check his catechism. At present, he doesn't have a hundredth of his father's courage, and good sense.

For the record, I'll take a Democratic ballot in my presidential primary, and I'll make my best effort. Secondly, you deserve to know that in Congress, I intend to vote for every conceivable Democrat on the ballot. I probably will abstain for president, praying that President Trump doesn't find a way to further coarsen and destroy the country itself. I will give enthusiastic thanks for the continuance of the Mexico City policy, the Hyde Amendment, and numerous other things, in the event of his victory. In the event of his loss, I will pray fervently for a change of heart about these things from the new president, and that he or she will not further criminalize anti-abortion activity, or traditional views on other subjects.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...