Okay, so we’re few days away from election day and there’s a big debate about the old “seamless garment” abortion argument going on down in the Texas Senate race. So, once again, it’s time to talk about the “consistent life” cop-out.
For those not familiar with the jargon, at face value, these terms indicate a view that being pro-life extends beyond abortion (which most pro-lifers believe to differing degrees). The cop-out happens when they’re used to justify voting for pro-abortion politicians or policies because there are other, more pressing things to pay attention to than unborn lives.
Case in point this time around: An op-ed over at the Dallas Morning News in which New Wave Feminists foundress Destiny Herdon-De La Rosa says that, despite being a part of the pro-life movement, she voted for Democratic Rep. Robert Francis (“Beto”) O’Rourke over Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
The crux of her argument is that, even though O’Rourke doesn’t vote anywhere close to pro-life (we’ll get to that in a minute), his liberal policies will result in fewer abortions, or help with what the author calls “creating a post-Roe culture while Roe still stands.”
Yes, the crux of argument is that it’s pro-life to vote for a politician who will unquestionably vote with the abortion lobby because of the other policies he supports. Exactly how many iterations of this have we heard before exactly?
To evaluate this argument, let’s just take a quick look at Robert Francis O’Rourke’s voting record on abortion so far.
He’s got a 100% rating from NARAL from this past session of Congress, thanks in no small part to his votes in favor of Planned Parenthood funding and against the 20-week pain-capable and conscience protection bills. And, what do you know? He’s also got a 100% score on Planned Parenthood’s congressional scorecard.
So, basically, what Herdon-De La Rosa is saying is that what O’Rourke’s liberal policies are going to do for the already-born is going to make up for the fact that he promises to be little more than a rubber stamp for the abortion lobby on legislation that actually deals directly with abortion.
Now, if one believes that those in the womb are just as human as those outside of it, applying this kind of logic anywhere is else is, well, just pitifully inadequate.
Let’s assume that pro-life views make one anti-homicide in a society where homicide is not only legal in a lot of cases, but culturally accepted and encouraged as well.
Now, come election time, imagine someone saying that it’s okay to vote for the candidate likely to liberalize homicide laws given the chance, so long as one truly believes that the candidate’s other policies affecting people who aren’t being killed will eventually result in fewer murders at some unspecified time in the future.
In the meantime, said politician would still work to liberalize murder laws, fight against any proposed anti-murder laws, and keep sending tax money to organizations that commit hundreds of thousands of homicides per year. But hey, at least he’s supposedly doing wonderful things for those lucky souls who don’t get killed.
If it sounds absurd, that’s because it is. But it doesn’t stop here.
Furthermore, when one knows that the politician will vote to keep sending hundreds of millions of tax dollars to organizations like Planned Parenthood, which then turn around and peddle the idea that killing the unborn is either just mundane “health care” or something “empowering for women” that ought to be shouted from the rooftops, you’re basically voting to shoot yourself in the foot long-term.
Then there’s the most obvious point to make about all this: The decision to vote for a pro-abortion politician under the guise of a consistent life ethic assumes equivalency between laws directly addressing abortion and those addressing aspects of life that don’t involve killing innocents.
If one’s moral compass can honestly equate the gravity of the legal, systematic mass murder of innocent kids and things like welfare, immigration and defense policies they don’t like, it needs some serious recalibration.
Of course pro-life advocacy shouldn’t end at the moment of birth. Those who believe in the sanctity of human life should work to engender a culture and society where the taking of innocent life is unthinkable; however that doesn’t mean that it makes any logical or moral sense to actively support abortion through politicians or policies while claiming a pro-life mantle.