Fred Sneesby - Observations on Culture, Faith and Politics

Giuliani’s Choice

May 15, 2007

I believe abortion is morally wrong. So says Rudy Giuliani. Wow! He’s really sticking his neck out! That’s a courageous stand! Out of the twenty or so Presidential candidates, let’s count the ones who have said he or she believes abortion is morally good. Even the convictionless Clinton has not said that. No, no one has endorsed abortion as a morally good act. I guess even for the many integrity-challenged Presidential candidates out there that would be too much.

The majority of these candidates have the same position as Rudy Giuliani: “I believe personally that abortion is morally wrong but I believe that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a matter between a woman and her doctor, therefore, I support a woman’s right to choose.”

I’ve heard some version of this (a similar one is, “I am personally opposed to abortion but I don’t want to impose my morality on anyone else.”) for over thirty years. It has to be one of the most idiotic statements of the 20th (and, now, the 21st) century.

Let’s review … the taking of human life is an evil. Can we all agree on this? There may be instances when causing this evil is justified. Can we all agree on this? The most commonly accepted instances would be killing an attacker in self-defense (unless some less drastic measure would stop the attack) and killing an enemy in a just war (sort of the self-defense case on the scale of nations). Until the latter part of the 20th century, no one has argued that the taking of innocent and defenseless human life can be justified.

So far, I guess Giuliani and the majority of Presidential candidates would be in agreement. But the next step in their argument is that this judgment that the taking of human life is morally wrong should not be inscribed in law, that individuals should be able to make that decision and take that step unencumbered by any communal, political, or legal consideration. This is the leap in reasoning that loses me.

I’m trying to understand their reasoning. Maybe, if I can think of other examples where the principle of “personally judged immoral but not to be prohibited by law” applies, it would be clearer to me.

Gambling might be one of them. Not a majority, but a good number of people say that gambling is immoral but that it should not be outlawed. The fact is, though, that even where gambling in some or all forms is legal, it is a highly regulated activity, so that is not similar to abortion.

I suppose the old prohibition of drinking alcohol might have been an instance of this. The days of Prohibition are over, of course, but the fact is that people’s negative moral appraisal of drinking is translated into law; there are all sorts of laws about public drunkenness, the sale and use of alcohol, and drunken driving.

So, I guess gambling and alcohol don’t quite fit the modern politicians’ keen moral principle that they use in relation to abortion.

Readers, can you help me out? Use my e-mail and send me some examples of activities that people may judge to be morally wrong but that those same people would allow to be freely practiced in society without any regulation at all. I’m stumped.

The fact of the matter is that what Giuliani and the majority of candidates are saying about abortion (“I’m personally opposed but I’m pro-choice.”) is complete moral and political cowardice.

OR, it could be that they don’t believe a fetus is human life and, therefore, does not deserve the protection of the law (notwithstanding the many laws protecting animal life).

OR, it could be that they don’t know when human life begins. But if you are unsure about when human life begins, wouldn’t you err on the side of caution and protect that life until an agreed upon starting point can be established? Why can’t we all take the earliest point in development at which a fetus has survived outside the womb and then say that no fetus can be aborted after that time unless the mother’s life was in danger? Why can’t that be Giuliani’s position? or Clinton’s? or Obama’s? or Romney’s?

The abortion issue will plague Giuliani’s primary campaign. The abortion issue will be prominent in the general Presidential election. It will not go away nor should it go away. It is not one issue among many but it is a pre-eminent issue of our time. Why these things are true will be the subject of next week’s column.