Rudy and Social Issues

My post on Rudy did not represent the position of Rudy G. as other than missing the point about Roe v. Wade and "choice". I made no equation of Rudy with the likes of Scott Peterson. Rather, that well-meaning folks like Rudy and apparently, Guy Arthur Thomas, simply do not get it about the issue of abortion, and where it has led: The Scott Petersons--and for that matter, the Susan Smiths and Andrea Yeates'--of the world are those who made it to the bottom of Roe's slippery slope.

And make no mistake: Those who actually promote and perform abortions--the greatest example being Planned Parenthood (the nation's largest abortion provider, which fights legally to have the courts overturn the likes of parental notification laws)--do indeed speak of "blobs of tissue", "collections of cells" and "products of conception", to convince their clientele and the public that we're not really talking about killing innocent people. (And by the way, Rudy G. has contributed to Planned Parenthood himself.)

The newspeakish language of 'choice' has enabled the 'pro-choice' crowd to define a distinction without a difference. But finally, we can breathe in some fresh linguistic air in the Gonzalez v. Carhart decision upholding the partial birth abortion ban, as we hear the Supreme Court speaking about "mothers" and their "unborn children", rather than "women" and their "fetuses".

Getting back to the candidacy of Rudy G., he has roundly--and rightly--been excoriated of late for claiming that "abortion is always morally wrong", while expressing the need that it be preserved as a "right".

So Rudy says wrong is right. Still think I'm the one who's not being intellectually honest?

There is a certain symmetry to your writing that is interesting: You have two main paragraphs of argument sandwiched between an introductory paragraph and a concluding paragraph which contradict each other.

In the latter, you attack my argument with the claim of too many gaps, while in the former, you presume as "obvious" my "intimation" of a connection that was neither expressed nor implied. It is also clear that my first attempt to clarify my argument was of no use, even provoking yet another judgemental response, as in "your (my) feigning innocent".

The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.

I just checked out the Bill of Rights (First 10 Amendments to the US Constitution), and could not find anything granted as a right that anyone could construe as a "moral wrong".

That the Supreme Court would uphold so many wrongs as rights under our Constitution is clearly contrary to the founders' intent, and has proven quite corrosive to American society.

Guy Arthur Thomas' last posting was frankly, incomprehensible to me.

Fortunately, for him and everyone else seriously interested in a substantive debate about Rudy G. and his position on the abortion issue, Frank Pastore has written a brilliant article about it, posted on today's Townhall. Marjorie Dannenfelser also posted a brilliant Townhall column about it yesterday.