The Plastic Android…

The Plastic Android… January 19, 2012

(aka “a great success story for the prolife movement“) can’t be bothered to show up for the Prolife forum. Don’t tell me. It’s because his “conversion” to the prolife cause is just so deep and sincere that he doesn’t need to show up.

Meanwhile, the kerrrrrayyyyyzy Ron Paul gives a sane defense of the dignity of the unborn and our obligation to preserve all innocent human life from harm:

"Hey Mark! You got $250 mil laying around?https://www.foxnews.com/us/..."

The Feast of the Holy Child ..."
"I have had a question for quite a while, and since your comment is quite ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Mark, in charity, perhaps you should try. It's clear how frustrated you are. And it ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"The whole course of Christianity from the first ... is but one series of troubles ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Tominellay

    …I note that Ron Paul took the time to address this Prolife forum via satellite from Washington, D.C., because he had gone to D.C. to address the House on the issue of the debt ceiling and to vote against raising the ceiling; and to introduce in the House new legislation to repeal the indefinite imprisonment of U.S. citizens provisions found in the recently enacted NDAA.

  • Couldn’t understand it. Is it just my computer, or is it a sound issue?

  • Timbot2000

    After watching the crowd boo the Golden Rule on Tuesday I have come to the conclusion that it is just too far gone. God will strike down upon us with Great Vengeance and Furious Anger.

    • It may not have been as bad as it seems. The big question seems to be what does he mean by that? How does that translate into international foreign policy? How do you take that and make it concrete? Because so much of his outlook is based on isolationism…excuse me, non-interventionism, and thus tends to blame the horrors of the world for the last half century on America, when he says something that should sound, well, sound, it might come off to folks used to hearing him hash and trash the US as one more line in a ‘what is he talking about’ rant. Just a thought.

      • Yes I’m sure all the jejune booing of the Golden Rule occurred only after each and every member in the audience deliberated heftily as to what Ron Paul precisely meant by his citing of the Golden Rule. Because these debates carry so much substance.

        Remember, these are the same voters who cheered Perry for defender defilers of the dead and Gingrich’s “lets follow in the footsteps of Andrew Jackson and kill anyone who opposes us.”

        http://ohnimus.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/golden-rule-booed/

        http://ohnimus.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/the-gop-debate-as-disappointing-as-ever/

        • Are they the same voters? Do they travel from debate to debate? I didn’t know that. I thought the audience was different each time.

          • this was all in the context of the same debate, actually, the same ten minutes of the same debate. Have you even seen Paul’s statement in context?

            • Yeah, I’ve seen it in context, and I’ve listened to Paul enough to know the context. It’s a viewpoint, shared apparently by some, but not others, that we have met the enemy and it is us. From there he builds his policies. His ideas aren’t all bad; in fact some are very good. I also like him as a person – or at least what I know of him. But the assumptions that are behind much of what he says is troubling, and part of a movement I find more dangerous than helpful, not to mention inaccurate.

      • Timbot2000

        “The Trouble with Tribals” Exhibit 1

        • Who me? A tribal? I must assume you’re speaking of someone else.

  • Jason Schalow

    Mark,

    I am a great fan of your blog and follow it regularly, but I have to tell you: I am concerned at the increasing level of vitriol in your political posts. To accuse someone of duplicity in their “conversion” to the pro-life cause because they skip a particular event seems, well, hyperbolic.

    For the record, I am not a Romney fan…just concerned that in your tone and approach that you not succumb to the same kind of ‘tribalist’ tactics that you’ve done such a great job of speaking out against.

    Peace. Jason

    • Mark Shea

      I believe Romney to be duplicitous, not because he couldn’t be bothered to show (that’s merely confirmation) but because as HotAir points out:

      But, somehow, I still can’t get past Romneycare, which allows for taxpayer-funded, elective, surgical abortions. Then, too, Romney granted pro-choice judge Matthew Nestor a lifetime appointment in a Massachusetts court (albeit a court that deals with civil and criminal issues, not constitutional issues like abortion rights). He also paved the way for the approval of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Worcester, Mass., that would provide abortions. All of that was after his 2004 pro-life “conversion.”

      And the “conversion” happened after he consulted polls.

      It is not vitriol to point out that there is nothing in Romney’s actions to indicate anything other than an utterly phony performance by a man who transparently has no core values beyond whatever will gain him power.

      • If Romney had vetoed Romneycare, the state legislature would have overturned it. He’s said himself that he didn’t like everything in Romneycare, but he took the best he could get from the legislature. I’m not saying it was right to sign, just that this is not proof of an insincere conversion.

        “He also paved the way for the approval of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Worcester, Mass., that would provide abortions.”

        An autonomous economic development agency approved the clinic. It was controlled by Romney appointees, but it’s not clear how many of those appointments Romney made before his conversion, or to what extent he even considered their stance on abortion when appointing them to an economic development agency.

        “And the “conversion” happened after he consulted polls.”

        That’s not what the article you linked to from the Huffington Post says. If the article is factual, Romney decided to run as pro-choice in 1994 after consulting polls. If that is the case, his conversion was more of an outing of his true colors.

        What is more troubling is that Romney believes abortion should be permitted in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother, and that he believes the issue should be sent back to the states. Still, I think he is the most likely candidate to get Roe v. Wade overturned. Because he is the best on the economy, which most people think is the most important issue, he is the most likely to get elected, to make Republicans popular enough to win enough Senate seats to approve a conservative Supreme Court Justice, to get re-elected, and if Ginsberg et al are still hanging on after 8 years, to deliver a favorable climate to a Rubio, Christie, or Jindal in 2020.

      • Jason Schalow

        Clarification appreciated…In that context, completely agree that his absence appears to be another data point in a trend. The link to additional info re: Romney’s record on pro-life issues is especially helpful to those of us who don’t follow politics as closely (due primarily to discouragement and disgust!).

        • Mark Shea

          No sweat. Thanks for reading!

      • At tonight’s debate, Romney pointed out that it was the courts that mandated that Romneycare cover abortions, not the legislation itself. Santorum faulted Romney for not anticipating this forseeable court action by specifically excluding abortion coverage from the legislation. But that would have never passed the legislature. I don’t see that there’s anything that Romney could have done to prevent Massachusetts from funding abortions.

        Regarding Matthew Nestor, it is unrealistic to expect anyone governing a pro-choice state to apply a pro-life litmus test for every appointment, including those that have nothing to do with abortion.

  • Mark S (not for Shea)

    “Conversion” entails a genuine change.

    I’m not convinced there is any such thing in Romney. He strikes me as an opportunist of the highest order.

  • Peggy R

    I had my money on that you were going to mention Callista, #3 herself.

    • Oregon Catholic

      LOL. I don’t trust anyone with helmet hair that looks exactly the same in every photo – or the man attracted to that! She defines plastic.

  • Confederate Papist

    I believe Romney (if he wins POTUS) will be the type of president the current occupier of the WH campaigned as in 2008.

    Either way, the empire will be finished.

  • Joannie

    Thank you, Mark for pointing out the very obvious fact. Mitt Romney is the “Establishment”s candidate. Other web sites point out that he is really nothing else but a Obama in another form. I had seen this interview earlier this morning and he seems to be sincere in what he (Dr. Paul) says. The only way to turn this nation around morally and ethically is a change of attitude, not federal laws can stop abortion and all of its other evil offspring. This comes on the heals of the news about Rick Perry dropping out and Newt’s third wife being interviewed by ABC. Also there is concern now that the Iowa results were tampered with so Dr. Paul would not get the votes and delegates needed and this known beforehand.

    • Mark Shea

      Actually it was Newt’s first wife. Another victim of this leading Family Values Party candidate.

      • Peggy R

        Actually, it was wife #2. We can all be forgiven, of course, for not being able to keep his wives and mistresses straight.

        ;^D

        • Mark Shea

          We need to be more open to his open relationships. A man that awesome must be shared by his women. And remember, it was all due to his love of America. That’s why he should be given even more power. And if you doubt that, it’s because you are an unforgiving person and a bad Catholic.

          • Donna Miller

            But, but, but Newt’s dissent from Catholic teaching is a faithful dissent! And besides, The Gospel According to Rush says:

            ‘I got a great note from a friend of mine. “So Newt wanted an open marriage. BFD. At least he asked his wife for permission instead of cheating on her. That’s a mark of character, in my book. Newt’s a victim. We all are. Ours is the horniest generation. We were soldiers in the sex revolution. We were tempted by everything from Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice to Plato’s Retreat, Deep Throat to no-fault divorce. Many of us paid the ultimate price, AIDS, abortion, or alimony for the cultural marching orders we got. Hell, for all I know we should be getting disability from the government.” That’s from a good friend of mine, “Newt’s slogan ought to, ‘Hell, yes, I wanted it.'”

            • Mark Shea

              Newt’s a victim. Of course. Why didn’t I see it before? Those damn libruls *made* him act like a douche. Gotta love the radio apostle of personal responsibility and family values when he’s on a roll.

              The Thing that Used to be Conservatism can’t die fast enough.

  • Obpoet

    What exactly is the strategic plan to overturn Roe v Wade? Is there one? Does anyone have plan? The last four years have seen two SCOTUS appointments that are unlikely to help. What is the plan?

  • “What exactly is the strategic plan to overturn Roe v Wade? Is there one?”

    The court is at a 5-4 stalemate upholding Roe because the justices retire during the administration of a like minded President to ensure that they will be replaced by one like themselves. So, we need a pro-life President in power until one or more of the pro-Roe justices can’t hold out any longer. And that President needs to have a pro-life majority in the Senate so that he can get an anti-Roe justive approved.

    Unfortunately, Mitt Romney is not %100 prolife, by his own words:
    http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/06/my-pro-life-pledge

    However, he is against Roe, and I believe that since he is the best on the economy, which most voters think is the most important issue, he is the most likely to create the conditions described above.

    • Except hasn’t this been the strategy for 39 years and it hasn’t happened yet? The other strategy, proposed by Ron Paul, is to pass a personhood amendment via the legislator and overturn Roe v Wade that way. At least we have the power to elect our legislators directly as opposed to the supreme court. Seeing as the court strategy has 39 years of failure under its belt I can’t help but favor Ron Paul’s change in approach. The result would be the same, Roe V Wade is overturned, severely limiting abortion and opening the door for a constitutional amendment banning abortion.

      • Peggy R

        We have to have state laws that limit abortion radically so such laws will rise up to SCOTUS. Get the attention of your legislators and governors. Get conservatives in those seats too.

      • Franciscan

        How long did it take to win the cold war, Christian? Unless you want actual shots fired, these things take time. There’s a complex interplay and dynamic in a democracy between the law of the land and the will of the people.

        For the first time now, polls show that most Americans self-identify as “pro-life”. As those numbers continue to skew in our favor, the more pro-life legislators we will likely get. And the more pro-life legislators, the more pro-life legislation, which will also positively impact the populace.

        The law is a reflection of the values of the people, but it is also a pedagogue.

        The challenge is to keep the general momentum going. Right now, with Obama in the White House, that momentum is being slowed. He needs to be replaced with someone who will help to continue the trend.

        Any one of the current crop of Republicans will do that. Yes, I know about Mark’s point on torture. But sometimes it’s not possible to wage too many battles at one time. The magnitude of that problem does not approach the magnitude on abortion: 50 million killed in this country alone since Roe v Wade.

        The Church has called abortion the greatest moral evil of our day. Let’s keep our eye on the ball.

        • Blessed John Paul II talks about a culture of life. To oppose abortion but to give every other life issue a pass in order to “pick our battles” so to speak is not nurturing the culture of life its sacrificing 90% of it in favor of the most prominent aspect. In order to have a real cultural swell we need to stop focusing on the GOP at the expense of all other life issues and instead have a comprehensive approach in favor of changing the culture. Ron Paul is the only candidate I’ve ever heard talk about the importance of promoting the culture of life and not merely singling out abortion and opposing it “no matter the cost.” To oppose abortion in favor of unjust war, torture etc. is self-defeating – just look at how many pro-choice people are alienated from the pro-life movement because so many “pro-lifers” support unjust war and capital punishment. They may be wrong on abortion but they’re right on these “lesser” life issues and until we find solidarity with them we will have neither an end to abortion nor an end to unjust war and the culture of life in the states will remain compromised.

          • Franciscan

            It’s not a matter of giving other issues a pass, Christian. It’s important to speak out against all moral evil. But it’s also important to deal with reality.

            Ron Paul is not going to win the nomination.

            After that, it’s a matter of the “least objectionable” unless you decide to cast your vote for someone who has no chance of winning. In fact, I suspect that even with Ron Paul it’s still a matter of “least objectionable.”

            Is Ron Paul against legal divorce and remarriage? Is he against legal pornography? Legal contraception? Legal homosexual adoption? Legal artificial insemination? Legal co-habitation?

            All of these things are gravely sinful – and fully capable of sending one to Hell, too. So, are you giving Ron Paul a “pass” on these things? Or are you making your practical accommodations based on certain realities?

            Regarding the idea you mentioned that Ron Paul supposedly advocates in order to stop abortion:

            If we’re having trouble getting enough votes in congress to approve SCJs who are opposed to abortion on legal grounds (which only requires 51 votes), then what are the chances that this same legislature will pass a personhood amendment (which requires two thirds of both the Senate and the House)?

            That doesn’t make much sense to me, unless I’m misunderstanding you.

            http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm

    • justamom

      “since he is the best on the economy” ? I think that is debateable since Ron Paul’s domestic policies are widely acknowledged to be the best. Romney has not even mentioned the issue of sound money. Gingrich at least acknowledges than Ron is correct on this and poor Santorum has recently explained to voters that “inflation is good” while being recorded by C-Span, which means that he not only has no problem with lies and murder but theft is OK by him, too!

    • Franciscan

      I think this is a reasonable argument, Ben. There are also some good lessons to be learned from the emancipation of slaves. Lincoln was far from the best candidate in terms of opposition to slavery, but he was the best candidate who could win. I’m not saying that Romney will “go to war” over abortion, but I think it’s a mistake to hold that only the completely pure can accomplish what needs to be accomplished. The battle over abortion is one being waged more like the Cold War, imo. We need to keep the pressure on, and please God, the evil empire will seem to just suddenly crumble.

  • “a man who transparently has no core values beyond whatever will gain him power.”

    I’m sorry Mark but you just don’t know that. I’ve heard conservatives confidently assert that Obama is deliberately trying to destroy the American economy so that he can declare martial law and assume dictatorial powers. I would say the same thing to them. You just don’t have the evidence or the insight into the heart to justify such self-assured proclamations. The three pieces of evidence you note above are not as cut and dry as presented.

    • Mark S. (not for Shea)

      “I’m sorry Mark but you just don’t know that.”

      True. But we can make a judgment call based on the evidence presented to us. And all the evidence we have shows that Romney has no real core values beyond the next election cycle and is willing to change his views and policies to whatever suits the needs of an election victory.

      Is Obama any better in that regard? No, of course not.

      But I still don’t buy the “logic” that the best way to defeat Moloch is to join Mammon. A lesser evil is till evil, even if he does wear a suit and grin like Guy Smiley.

      • Franciscan

        “I still don’t buy the “logic” that the best way to defeat Moloch is to join Mammon. A lesser evil is till evil, even if he does wear a suit and grin like Guy Smiley.”

        I’m sure that there were people who refused to vote for Abraham Lincoln because he was far from the best candidate in terms of slavery. In fact, he once said that if he could have preserved the union without freeing a single slave, he would have done so. I’m sure some cast votes for “more pure” candidates that no one remembers anymore. And I’m sure that Lincoln had some other serious problems (including his willingness to usurp states’ rights and thereby dramatically expand the power and scope of the federal government). But in the end, he was the only one who had a serious chance to bring the most profound evil of the day to an end: slavery. And, thanks be to God, he did.

        I’m not a “Romney guy”. If it were up to me alone, I would prefer Santorum or Paul. But if and when the choices come down to Romney vs. Obama, I’m not going to effectively sit that one out by voting for candidate with no chance.

        Aside from the damage he has done and will continue to do on the issue of abortion, have you seen how increasingly aggressive Obama is becoming against the Church?

        http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-orders-catholics-act-against-their-faith-bishops-call-it-unconscionable

        Also, do you know where Ron Paul stands on legal contraception? Legal divorce and remarriage? Legal adoption by homosexuals? Legal artificial insemination? Legal cohabitation? Legal pornography? Sex education? Legalization of drugs?

        According to these websites, he doesn’t look nearly pure on these very serious issues:

        http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-orders-catholics-act-against-their-faith-bishops-call-it-unconscionable

        http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul.htm

        It seems to me that Catholic Ron Paul supporters are making their own calculations and compromises.

      • Franciscan

        “I still don’t buy the “logic” that the best way to defeat Moloch is to join Mammon. A lesser evil is till evil, even if he does wear a suit and grin like Guy Smiley.”

        I’m sure that there were people who refused to vote for Abraham Lincoln because he was far from the best candidate in terms of slavery. In fact, he once said that if he could have preserved the union without freeing a single slave, he would have done so. I’m sure some cast votes for “more pure” candidates that no one remembers anymore. And I’m sure that Lincoln had some other serious problems (including his willingness to usurp states’ rights and thereby dramatically expand the power and scope of the federal government). But in the end, he was the only one who had a serious chance to bring the most profound evil of the day to an end: slavery. And, thanks be to God, he did.

        I’m not a “Romney guy”. If it were up to me alone, I would prefer Santorum or Paul. But if and when the choices come down to Romney vs. Obama, I’m not going to effectively sit that one out by voting for candidate with no chance.

        Aside from the damage he has done and will continue to do on the issue of abortion, have you seen how increasingly aggressive Obama is becoming against the Church?

        http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-orders-catholics-act-against-their-faith-bishops-call-it-unconscionable

      • Franciscan

        Also, do you know where Ron Paul stands on legal contraception? Legal divorce and remarriage? Legal adoption by homosexuals? Legal artificial insemination? Legal cohabitation? Legal pornography? Sex education? Legalization of drugs?

        According to these websites, he doesn’t look nearly pure on these very serious issues:

        http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-orders-catholics-act-against-their-faith-bishops-call-it-unconscionable

        http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul.htm

        It seems to me that Catholic Ron Paul supporters are making their own calculations and compromises.

      • Franciscan

        Also, do you know where Ron Paul stands on legal contraception? Legal divorce and remarriage? Legal adoption by homosexuals? Legal artificial insemination? Legal cohabitation? Legal pornography? Sex education? Legalization of drugs?

        According to the “position” websites I’ve seen, he doesn’t look nearly pure on these very serious issues. It seems to me that Catholic Ron Paul supporters are making their own calculations and compromises.

        • Franciscan

          Apologies for the multiple posts – some didn’t appear at first so I reposted them without links, etc. in order to get by the automatic screener feature.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    I certainly disagree with Ron Paul on a GREAT many things, but when it comes to this issue, he’s the only one talking any sense.

    The Prolife movement needs to wake up. Overturning RvW will NOT end abortion in this country. In fact, it could very well make it worse. It would return the authority for this to the states, which AT BEST would mean you’d have states like California, New York, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, etc. would become the nation’s leading abortion mills, while a very few states might be able to restrict abortions.

    If we are really serious about ending the wholesale murder of millions in this country, we need to change the CULTURE, and the laws will follow.

    But for the past 30 years, the prolife movement has focused 90% of their efforts on politicians willing to sell their soul to the highest bidder. Meanwhile, we’re losing the culture war on this issue. And the GOP simply uses this issue to manipulate prolifers.

    If you really want to affect this, stop giving your time, money, and effort to politicians who are just dangling a carrot forever out of your reach. Devote your time, money, and effort to folks willing to engage the culture in education, books, movies, TV, etc.

  • Obpoet

    Ben,

    Yes, the SCOTUS. So while we vote for the unelectable, Obama gets elected (and re-elected?) and nominates his two lovely choices that will haunt us for 20+ years. I wasn’t pleased with Bush, but his two seem pretty solid. At least Romney has cited Roberts and Alito as model justices in his mind.

    My point being, people cry out over Roe v. Wade, but do not seem to stop and think how best to reverse it.

    • Mark Shea

      You refer, of course, to John “Roe is settled law” Roberts. Yes. The perfect GOP appointee. Romney loves that sentiment and will be sure to give us somebody like that.

    • Mark S. (not for Shea)

      This argument is Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. I’ve been hearing it since Reagan. I don’t believe it any more. No amount of Supreme Court Justices is going to end abortion in this country.

  • Obpoet

    The SCOTUS is the only way abortion will end, if it ever does. And the number needed is 5. It’s not “no amount”, it’s 5. Don’t any of you play chess? You have to think more than one move ahead.

    • Mark S. (not for Shea)

      The Supreme Court won’t end abortion in this country. It will just change the playing field.

  • Franciscan

    I think there are also some good lessons to be learned from the emancipation of slaves. Lincoln was far from the best candidate in terms of opposition to slavery, but he was the best candidate who could win. I’m not saying that Romney will “go to war” over abortion, but I think it’s a mistake to hold that only the completely pure can accomplish what needs to be accomplished. The battle over abortion is one being waged more like the Cold War, imo. We need to keep the pressure on, and please God, the evil empire will seem to just suddenly crumble.

    Many people scoffed at the approach we took agains the Soviets. Some, like Patton, urged outright war at one time. Others said we should stop opposing the Soviets and try to “get along.” It turned out that sustained pressure over time was the right course. No war AND no more Soviet Union.

    Obama needs to be replaced most of all because he’s trying to change the momentum in this battle. The longer he remains in office, the more lasting the damage he does to the momentum.

  • Obpoet

    Mark S.,

    You are in effect saying abortion will never end then in the USA. Perhaps you are right. I cannot be so fatalistic. I think there are 5 men and women in this country who could end up on the SCOTUS who could in a moment of prayer and introspection say …….. Enough.

    • Mark S. (not for Shea)

      I’m saying that SCOTUS cannot end abortion in this country. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, all it will mean is that the legality of abortion rights goes back to the States. At BEST, it will mean that states like California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Washington will become abortion mills.

      Changing the laws is only 1/10th of the battle. We have to change the culture. But the prolife movement is putting 90% of their efforts into a GOP that doesn’t really care about this issue.

      Change the culture, and the laws will follow.

  • Obpoet

    Actually, it is the exact opposite. A cursory examination of judicial history will show that is the law that changes the culture. Abortion is the chief example. Desegregation is another. The only way it will change is for the SCOTUS to reverse its decision and admit there really isn’t a constitutional right to abortion. Another cursory review of the law will reveal that the concept of “settled law” for the SCOTUS is good for a ripe laugh.

    • Franciscan

      I don’t think it’s an either/or. It’s a both/and. There are some cases where the law changed the culture (such as the ones you mentioned), but probably more where the law primarily reflects the culture. It’s a fairly complex dynamic.

  • Obpoet

    Certainly law comes from humanity, and many would say ultimately from God. But as regards the issue of abortion, this seems to be a clear example of the courts affecting the culture, and not the reverse. Furthermore, there is unlikely to be a change in abortion law that proves effective, unless it comes from the SCOTUS. Culture itself will continue to embrace abortion. It will only take 5 people to overturn it.

    • Franciscan

      In the specific case of abortion, I agree that the change in law preceded the change in culture. The law was a (very destructive) pedagogue in that case. True.