Oh please forgive us for our giddiness.
There have been some friends out there who make quite a show of pointing out to pro-lifers who might occasionally commit the sin of voting Republican that Sen. Scott Brown is pro-choice. Duh.
How can you be so giddy about the election of a pro-choicer? This proves that you are Republican first and pro-life second. How silly.
As a dedicated pro-lifer who sometimes votes Republican let me say a few things. Yes, I was giddy over the election of Scott Brown. You know why? Because his election probably derailed the institutionalization of taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand for generations to come. That seems like a pretty good reason to celebrate.
If you are pro-life, I do not see how you could be not happy about the result of that election. Oh sure, we all know that Brown is pro-choice. We are also aware of the lip service paid to life by many Republicans, but that didn’t matter on January 19th. All that mattered on the 19th is that federally funded abortion-on-demand was at least stalled and that is something to celebrate. Anyone who is unhappy about that result is most likely putting their own politics first.
Another thing, the reason that this horrific legislation was killed by a pro-choicer is because that pro-choicer caucuses with the Republicans. This is why party matters. The faults of the Republican party are myriad and manifest. No doubt. But they are the party that gives the best chance to life and this legislative battle gives proof of it. Sure, it was a coalition of life advocates and fiscal conservatives that sealed the deal, but it sealed the deal. That is what matters.
It is very easy to be impressed with our own cleverness to the point of outwitting ourselves. There are choices to be made, choices with real consequences. It is not, as some would have it, a choice between a stupid evil party and an evil stupid party, as clever as that equivalency may sound. It is a choice between the party of death and the dysfunctional and often cowardly party of life.
But given that choice I will vote for the dysfunctional and often cowardly party of life every time. Even if I have to hold my nose to do it. I will make the best choices when I can, and the least bad choices the other times.
As for my giddiness, it remains. For if I were not happy for this result, not matter how it came to be, I would risk the sin of ingratitude. I am grateful.
For those not so inclined, go rain on someone else’s parade.
January 28, 2010 at 5:12 am
Hear, hear!
January 28, 2010 at 11:37 am
Oh, Patrick, you're obviously just a moral relativist…
January 28, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Well said!
January 28, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Ding ding ding! Well said.
January 28, 2010 at 3:34 pm
sorry, meant to add /sarc off
January 28, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Amen!
January 28, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Bravo, the one of whom you speak certainly seems to feel he has a lot to be modest about.
Someone should remind him a clever mouth doesn't denote a clever mind.
Your post is dead on the money.
January 28, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Amen. The perfect must never be the enemy of the good.
January 28, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Very well put, Patrick. Hear, hear!
I hope your post gets very widely circulated.
January 28, 2010 at 5:26 pm
This needs to be said–often–as we approach each election. It can be said in various ways but today you have found a clear way of saying it. This needs to be spread widely.
January 28, 2010 at 7:59 pm
This is the same reason I would have voted for Giuliani had he been the republican nominee. He has been honest about his pro-abortion stance but he also had promised to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. That was something I could have lived with. RJW
January 29, 2010 at 3:02 am
"It is not, as some would have it, a choice between a stupid evil party and an evil stupid party, as clever as that equivalency may sound."
I think I know who that is referring to. But I'll be darned if I didn't find myself leaning that way after reading the first half of Glenn Beck's book. Are we suckers for allowing ourselves to be taken for granted every time? Is the two party system set in stone? Might a vote for a sure loser third party conservative at least help to influence Republicans? Or is the Replublican party beyond help at this point? Are we right to stand on that "single issue" until it's settled for good, and maybe show the other party that we are open to debate on other matters of prudential judgment? I had this all figured out in 2008 and was satisfied with my vote for McCain. But I'm starting to get that "same sh!t, different pile" feeling again.
January 29, 2010 at 12:54 pm
I was relieved that he won as well – and that Coakley lost. But I don't forget that he's still pro-choice (albeit with qualifications) and pro-torture.
February 1, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Sorry to be the one to rain on your parade, but it might not be inevitable that Brown's Senate election will result in fewer abortions. even if he does help maintain a ban on federal funding.
Let me tell you a story: A dear friend of mine, who, up until that point, I considered a devout Catholic, confided that she actually considered aborting her youngest daughter. Why? She's a cancer survivor, and because of that, the deductible on her family's health insurance runs into the five figures. Her husband's job is hanging by a thread (he stays with a company on the edge of bankruptcy because if he leaves, her cancer becomes a "pre-existing condition," and they couldn't even get that plan with the five-figure deductible), and her own working hours have been cut back. Thankfully, those thoughts were banished pretty quickly, and they have been able to hold on to their house as well as their adorable little girl. (Frankly, it sounds pretty crass put that way — to gain that child would be worth losing everything, and it may have been that realization as much as fear of sin that banished those thoughts from their heads.)
But I can't help but wonder which would really prevent more abortions, maintaining the ban on federal money for abortions, or passing a health care bill such that everyone, sick or well, wealthy or poor (and all in between) has access to care? (Ideally, both would happen, but that's not likely given our current slate of party-line politicians.)