« Republican Candidates on the War | Main | Republicans Look to Be Next Jack Bauer »

May 16, 2007

Republican Abortion Debate

Last night's debate between the Republican presidential candidates at one point focused heavily on "life" issues – abortion and stem cell research. Their various responses, in my opinion, gave a pretty clear picture of the range of views within the Party - and to some extent even within mainstream America - on this issue.

Rudy Giuliani's answer to the abortion question revealed that he does not view it in the same way as the pro-lifers do.

MR. GOLER: You have said that you personally hate abortion but support a woman's right to choose. Governor Huckabee says that's like saying, "I hate slavery, but people can go ahead and practice it." Tell me why he's wrong.

MR. GIULIANI: Well, there is no circumstances under which I could possibly imagine anyone choosing slavery or supporting slavery. There are people, millions and millions of Americans, who are as of good conscience as we are, who make a different choice about abortion. And I think in a country where you want to keep government out of people's lives, or government out of people's lives from the point of view of coercion, you have to respect that. There are things that you can oppose, things you can be against; and then you can come to the conclusion, in the kind of democracy we have, the kind of society that we have, and the kind of society we have where we want to keep government out of people's personal lives, that you can respect other people's view on this.

Here's what I mean. Pro-lifers view abortion as murder, plain and simple. Clearly, "there is no circumstances under which" someone could choose or support murder. His answer, then, reveals that he does not consider abortion to be murder. It is something that he finds distasteful and something that should be reduced (including through pregnancy prevention), and I think most people would agree with that. So to say he is against abortion, including him with pro-lifers, implies something inaccurate. He has tried to spin his position so as not to offend the far right because he is, after all, in a primary, but the fact is he does not qualify as a pro-life candidate.

Mike Huckabee's answer to the abortion question would tend to support my take on this:

MR. HUCKABEE: … I'm pro-life because I believe life begins at conception, and I believe that we should do everything possible to protect that life because it is the centerpiece of what makes us unique as an American people. We value the life of one as if it's the life of all, and that's why we go out for the 12-year-old Boy Scout in North Carolina when he's lost; that's why we look for the 13 miners in Sago, West Virginia, when the mine explodes; that's why we go looking for the hikers in Mount Hood, because we value life, and it's what separates us from the Islamic jihadists who are out to kill us. They celebrate death. They have a culture of death. Ours is a culture of life. Now, if something is morally wrong, let's oppose it. The honest argument is I don't think it's morally wrong, and someone could take that position and then justify abortion. But if it's wrong, then we ought to be opposed to it, and we ought to find ways to find better ways to deal with our respect for human life.

Sam Brownback, when asked to explain what he would say to a rape victim about having to carry the resulting baby to term, further clarified the pro-life view:

SEN. BROWNBACK: That would be a very difficult situation, and it is a very difficult situation. But the basic question remains. Is the child in the womb a person? Is it a viable life? And if it is a person, it's entitled to respect. And is it an innocent person? And I think that's the thing we've got to really look at here, is, what are we doing? We talk about abortion, but abortion is a procedure. This is a life that we're talking about. And it's a terrible situation where there's a rape that's involved or incest. But it nonetheless remains that this is a child that we're talking about doing this to, of ending the life of this child. Will that make the woman in a better situation if that's what takes place? And I don't think so, and I think we can explain it when we look at it for what it is: a beautiful child of a loving God, that we ought to protect in all circumstances in all places, here in the womb, somebody that's struggling in poverty, a family that's struggling. We should work and look at all life, be pro-life and whole-life for everybody.

Mitt Romney didn't really clearly state his position, but explained the cause of the angst about the issue within the Republican Party quite well:

MR. GOLER: Governor Romney, I want to give you another difficult abortion situation. You've explained that you once were pro-choice because a relative died after she underwent an illegal abortion. Tell me what you would say to someone else who lost a wife or a daughter to an illegal abortion, if you named the Supreme Court justice who tipped the balance and over turned Roe v. Wade.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, obviously, a terrible circumstance that you described; something of that nature, it just makes you sick. And I can't imagine my heart not being rent by virtue of having a circumstance like that presented to me. I can tell you that I've looked at this long and hard. I've always been personally pro-life. I've taught that to others, it's been part of my faith. The question for me was: What should government do in this kind of setting? And the Supreme Court stepped in and took a decision, and I said I'd support that decision. And then I watched the impact of that decision as I was governor of Massachusetts. And when we came to debating cloning and embryo farming and we saw human life, human life rack after rack that's going to be experimented upon and then disposed, I said Roe v. Wade has gone to such an extent that we've cheapened the value of human life. And I believe that a civilized society has to respect the sanctity of human life. And what I'm saying is that, in my view, the people should make this decision, not the court.

I'm seeing that this issue is actually forcing the candidates to search their souls and figure out what they really personally believe. I think the media and the activists may be trying to place the candidates into nice, tidy little boxes on this issue, but the reality of their positions reflects the reality of this country's view of the issue. And that is that it is not an easy question, that the human consequences are gravely serious no matter what we do, and that ultimately the shades of opinion in the matter boil down to a combination of answers to two fundamental questions:

1. When does a human being become a human being? and
2. How does the value of an unborn human being measure up against the value of a born human being?

I don't expect we'll ever stop debating those two questions. Neither do I expect the abortion debate to ever, ever end.

Posted by Becky at May 16, 2007 03:49 PM