For the GOP, “prolife” means…

“anti-abortion except for humans who threaten GOP access to power.  Then you can kill ‘em and call ‘em ‘evil seed‘”. 

Nor is this new. Hannity has been using this pagan logic for more than a decade. He pretends to be conflicted when he offends prolifers and has to do damage control. But he steadfastly maintains the rhetoric and does not move a muscle to change, because his real belief is in exploiting prolifers, not in being prolife.

  • Dave G.

    I don’t see anything. Is there a video? Picture?

    • Mark S. (not for Shea)

      Ditto.

    • Dave G.

      There the links are. Thank you. FWIW, I’ve never been a fan of Hannity. Back in the day, I thought Alan Colmes was the least offensive of the two. I’ve always had a hunch that the reason FOX has the viewership it has is because it has a monopoly on television news outlets that don’t pander to a progressive ideology. It doesn’t always pander to traditional values, but it does go after more progressive views, and since it’s the only one on TV that comes close to doing so, that probably accounts for its numbers. Personally I’ve never cared for FOX in general, but I do watch it in addition to the other outlets and papers to see things that aren’t covered in other major outlets. I can’t help but think many who watch it see it that way, and don’t necessarily hang on every jot and tittle that comes out of the FOX press.

      • chezami

        Hannity here mirrors with precision GOP policy. The sole contribution Romney made to the prolife conversation was to force Paul Ryan to move from being prolife to a position of “kill all babies who stand in the way of GOP access to power”. Hannity lies when he pretend to be conflicted. He’s been spouting this “evil seed” bullshit for at *least* 12 years.

        • Dave G.

          Again, I’ve never been a fan. Or a dyed in the wool member of the GOP for that matter.

        • Edward Graham

          Mark: I’m not a Repub but I don’t think that that is a fair description of “GOP policy” or Paul Ryan’s position as a VP candidate. Ryan didn’t change his position, but simply stated that he was comfortable being Romney’s running mate despite Romney’s support for the so-called “hard cases” exceptions because he thought that Romney’s position was a “step in the right direction”:

          http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/paul-ryan-softens-anti-abortion-stance-as-good-step-in-the-right-direction/
          A “step in the right direction” is not the end of the journey.
          Although I agree with you that a truly pro-life position is one that recognizes that making an exception for the so-called “hard cases” is morally and intellectually incoherent, politics is the art of the possible. Fighting to reduce abortion where possible, rather than insisting on all or nothing now, is not the same as saying, o.k., “kill all babies who stand in the way of … power,” but recognition that sometimes one can only make progress incrementally, one “step in the right direction” at a time.
          The hard political fact is that most Americans, for now, foolishly are troubled by these so-call “hard cases.” But more than 99 percent of the abortions performed in this country have nothing to do with them. The so-called “hard cases” are props used to justify abortion-on-demand. If we could get political agreement to pass a law that would prohibit all abortions with the exception of the so-called “hard cases,” pro-lifers should take that deal – and continue to work to change hearts and minds on the “hard cases.” That would be a huge victory for life, and not just a means to political power.

          • chezami

            Ryan prostituted himself for the sake of power, plain and simple. The GOP has no interest in abortion except insofar as it suckers prolifers into supporting GOP graspers-graspers-after-power. It is not prolife. It is anti-abortion just so long as baby does not stand between the GOP and power.

            • Mark S. (not for Shea)

              Correct. The GOP’s sole core value is Mammon. All the rest are just accessories.

            • Edward Graham

              Plain and simple? The evil of abortion certainly. The most effective way to combat that evil in a fallen world, not so much. Rejecting allies in that fight because they are only 99 percent in agreement with you rather than 100 percent, or because they think an incremental rather than an all-or-nothing approach is the only one currently feasible politically, well, plainly is simplicity of a sort.
              In any event, if political power is the only thing that matters to the GOP, it is not obvious that the pro-life position is the worldly-wise approach. The GOP would risk some of its current political base if it abandoned that position, but it would eliminate one of the primary “war-on-women” weapons the Dems (and their allies in the media) use to torture Repub candidates (and inflame the Dems’ base). It would also help Repubs expand their appeal (particularly in blue states) to libertarians, other independents, younger voters, and women, especially young and unmarried women. Not sure whether abandonment of the issue would result in a net increase in overall GOP appeal (pro-life voters are intense voters, there would be at least some initial mistrust of the Repubs’ volte face which might take some time to overcome, and the Dems could always try to “out-bid” on the issue), but which position is the most effective route for the GOP to “power is not “plain and simple.” And that suggests that principle has something to do with the GOP’s tenacious insistence on making this an issue.
              It certainly is simple to say that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties on the issue. But simple doesn’t make it so.

              • Linebyline

                The difference between 0% and 99% is quantitative: How much abortion is OK?

                The difference between 99% and 100% is qualitative: Abortion can never be OK, because of what it is.

                • Edward Graham

                  Linebyline: I might be misunderstanding you, and if I am, I apologize. But it seems to me the issue, at least in the context of the political arena, is what can a politician do to stop abortion? Until Roe is overturned, you can (1) nibble at the edges legislatively (or use legislation as teaching tools to try to illustrate the logic and evil of abortion), such as partial-birth abortion laws, (2) try to get judges on the bench who will limit the effects of Roe and, eventually one hopes, overturn Roe, and (3) try to make the case to the America people in favor of life. The GOP has done all three of these things for a very long time and continues to do so. You can question its tactics and strategy and effectiveness at times, but it is ridiculous to say that there is no real difference between the Dems and the Repubs on the issue.
                  The question isn’t whether abortion is always wrong. Of course it is always wrong. The question is if, in the current political context, incremental progress is feasible, but a perfect solution is not, do you work for the half a loaf now and then continue to work for the rest in God’s time? Or do insist on all or nothing now?
                  I just don’t see why, if a politician concludes that the former approach is the feasible course at the moment, he has “prostituted” himself for “power” or otherwise has earned an anathema.

            • Mike Petrik

              Pure unmitigated BS. The GOP is a political party. As such it comprises lots of people with varying views, some very principled others not. A large GOP majority believes that abortion is morally problematic and therefore opposes abortion on demand. A large GOP minority opposes all abortions without exception. The internal arguments are real and often passionate. Compromise is inevitable and is informed by the art of the possible. It is not morally superior to self-righteously opt out of this messy and human process by fecklessly throwing stones from an obscure blog.

          • Linebyline

            But is it worth the side-effect of enshrining in law that it’s OK to kill these “hard cases”? You might save a lot of lives, which is not something at which one ought to sneeze. However, the root of the problem, namely the idea that it’s OK to sacrifice the lives of certain people for certain reasons, would burrow even deeper into our society than it already has. And then all it would take is some rhetorical trick to make pretty much any reason fit the legal definition of a “hard case” and we’d be right back where we started.

            Which, come to think of it, is the exact situation we’re already in. Remember “Health of the mother”?

            • Edward Graham

              Linebyline:
              The danger of setting a “precedent” by accepting the exceptions in a law, I think, is a legitimate concern and one that would have to be weighed carefully. I think reasonable people certainly could disagree about the prudence of doing so in a particular case.
              Some things to consider, however, apart from the one you acknowledged – that an imperfect law potentially could save a lot of lives while we work for an end to the evil:
              The “precedent” that some lives, including the so-called “hard cases,” are disposable already is entrenched and we would at least be reducing the scope of that precedent; that fact alone arguably would establish that the idea that some lives are disposable is subject to change and the legal and political ratchet at least would be moving in the right direction.
              Nothing would stop pro-lifers, including pro-life politicians, from making it plain that a piece of legislation limiting abortion only was a “step in the right direction” and that the work would continue; certainly we have seen similar examples of incremental change, e.g., the civil rights movement and its related litigation and legislation and political efforts to change laws and hearts and minds.

              • Linebyline

                I guess my point is that the thing about a step in the right direction is that (to vaguely paraphrase Chesterton) that direction is right because it’s toward something. And the idea of taking a step in the right direction is to then take more steps in the right direction until you get to your destination.

                It’s not about donkeys versus elephants. Obviously there are differences between the two. The idea that a vote for the Democratic party is a vote for life would be laughable if it weren’t so terribly sad. But the idea that a vote for the Republican party is a pro-life vote–and an inherently pro-life vote, if you ask my local right-to-life group–bothers me much more because it’s so seemingly plausible.

                The thing is, many of our allegedly pro-life Republicans aren’t just supporting incomplete solutions as intermediate goals: They’re holding incompletely pro-life positions. When they make exceptions, they aren’t just saying they’ll start with the common ground. They’re saying that abortion is not a problem in cases of, let’s say, rape or incest. This is basically a statement that abortion is not, qua abortion, inherently evil, a statement that you and I agree is incorrect.

                Folks like Ryan, if we take them at their word, might not disagree with is that abortion is inherently wrong. Folks like Romney, however, would disagree with us. Consequently, we can’t expect them to take all the necessary steps in the right direction, because their destination is somewhere else. I’m not comfortable with Ryan being comfortable with that.

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    I’m not taking a position on the issue here, but it strikes me that there is something wrong with your logic. Hannity takes a position on something outside the church and he’s the tribal Catholic? While you follow the Church position NO MATTER WHAT NEVER DEVIATING and you;re the individual thinker? Seems to me that Hannity might have a disagreement on an issue like almost all Catholics since the beginning of the Church but you’re the tribal Catholic.

    • chezami

      Tribal Catholics don’t particularly know or understand their faith and when it crosses them, they are quite at ease with blowing it off. He is Catholic as he is a Hannity and Irish: because that’s his tribe. But when Old Man Hannity (or the pope) tells him something his small mind doesn’t like, he just ignores it. Very common.

      • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

        I guess it depends on how you define tribal. It seems to me in this day and age there are many choices one can make on selecting which form of Christianity to pick, and it’s quite fluid. I know Hannity has lots of protestant friends and I know he’s a big fan of Duck Dynasty, or whatever it’s called. His wife is from the south, Alabama, though I don’t know her religion. He could easily choose some form of protestant denomination if he felt it fit his beliefs better. But I’m sure he’s theologically not in lock step with any protestant denomination either. Apparently he finds that Catholicism is a better fit. That doesn’t sound tribal to me. What sounds tribal is someone who is in lockstep with every single position of the tribe. That’s how I define tribal.
        Anyway, perhaps I bristle at anything that pushes people out of the church. If 100% uniformity were the criteria of a Catholic, you can kiss at least 90% of the people at Sunday Mass out of the church, let alone the number that don’t even attend church.

        • Dave G.

          Only 90%? Point me to those who are 100% and I’ll follow them.

          • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

            Well, I said at least 90%. But you’re right, it’s probably almost everyone.
            It also occured to me that Mark is a convert and probably doesn’t quite see first hand a cradle Catholic experience. What exactly is a cradle Catholic supposed to do, reject one’s upbringing? We all have complex experiences and our identities get fragmented. Around here in the northeast, almost all Catholics have an ethnic identity, and then when you mix a political identity in there it becomes a hodgepodge. Of all my friends who are ethnic cradle Catholics, none of them would be perfect in their Catholic beliefs. We struggle as humans and we ask for God’s grace and mercy.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X