Sen. Joe Biden's stand on abortion is a deliberate use of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo's 1984 "personally opposed" argument for the pro-choice position, an approach that was perfected by former President Bill Clinton (i.e., "safe, legal and rare") and regurgitated by Sen. John Kerry (i.e., "I'm pro-life") during his failed bid for the presidency.
Barack Obama's "nuanced" stand on abortion, although different, is presented with parallel themes, as if the candidate doesn't like abortion but believes in the personal "right" of women to dispatch with their unborn child. In fact, Obama apparently finds abortion so repugnant that his position involves working together in an effort to make it unnecessary.
But are these personally opposed but pro-choice idealists really against abortion and can a pro-life voter in good conscience vote for either? The answer lies in what it means to be pro-choice. From a convoluted nuanced position to "personally opposed" the pro-choice position has in common certain fundamental beliefs.
Gerard Bradley puts it like this:
[Pro-choice] is the answer that the legal protections which protect most of us from being killed should not protect all of us from being killed. Some people--the unborn--are to be exposed to deadly violence without legal aid or redress. And, so, just as ante-bellum Americans who refused to own slaves were nonetheless correctly called "pro-slavery"--because they affirmed the legal right of others to do so--Americans who today affirm the legal right of a women to have an abortion could correctly be called "pro-abortion," even if they judge abortion an option unworthy of their own choice.
Pro-choice is certainly pro-abortion, despite any personal feeling to the contrary. In fact, the position not only denies legal rights to one group of people but it protects, and in Obama's case believes in funding, those who choose to kill the unprotected unborn.
It is indeed dastardly for one in authority to stand by and watch a bully pick on an innocent child. This is an act of omission and is morally indefensible. However, a person who protects those from intervention or punishment who are bullying an innocent child commits an act of commission and is an accomplice to the crime.
Similarly, government authorities who hide behind the pro-choice position are not only pro-abortion but are willing and purposeful accomplices to the most heinous holocaust this world has seen (49,000,000 killed).
Bradley's must read article also demonstrates why attacking the "root cause" of abortion will not be the tie that binds us together:
Argument 1: "Attack the Root Cause of Abortion"This argument proposes to leave the unjust legal structure about abortion in place until some distant future time when, it is hoped, abortions will be so rare that prohibiting them will make sense. This argument proposes to now seek a reduction in the number of abortions performed annually, from the present 1.2 million to some lower number. The argument proposes to accomplish the reduction by attacking what are said to be abortion's "root causes," mainly, a widespread lack of proper health care and income supports. These proposals include better pre-natal maternal care, better pediatric care, and more income supplements for the poor. The moral question is whether this proposal is fair to the unborn? And that entails applying the Golden Rule.
To do that we must take a different example of the same basic proposal, an example which substitutes a different set of people called upon to pay the price of doing nothing to legally restrict a certain class of deadly assaults. Take the example of domestic violence. Suppose that approximately 1.2 million American women are killed each year by domestic violence. Suppose further that a Presidential candidate said the following: "Friends, I think we must stop wasting resources prosecuting domestic violence. Let us get the law out of the picture. Maybe someday we could arrest men who kill women at home. But that day is not today, for anyone can see that arrests and convictions have not slowed the rate of domestic violence very much at all. Besides, we are talking about private family matters where people make hard choices. Let us instead join together and attack the root causes of domestic violence, causes which have to do with ignorance and poverty. I propose therefore to give angry men jobs and money to attend anger management classes. And I think we should start teaching all of America' children early on that every man and woman deserves to be treated well."
Anyone who refuses to vote for this candidate but who would vote for a "pro-choice" candidate is, at least presumptively, guilty of failure to apply the Golden Rule.
However, one chooses to spin their answer, pro-choice is pro-abortion and no consist pro-lifer can rationalize a vote for a pro-choice candidate.
Why, in 12 (TWELVE) Years of a Republican-Controlled Congress, 6 of Which was with a "Pro-Life" Republican President, Has NO Human Life Amendment to Outlaw Abortion Come up for a Vote?
It seems you stand firmly on being politically pro-life. The true way to end abortion in America is by becoming practically pro-life. We must teach safe sex to our kids. We must make the adaption system simple. We must put a waiting period on obtaining an abortion. We must institute a waiver to be signed by all women wishing to obtain an abortion which gives you all the risk and procedures.
Abortion is never going to be overturned. We have to quit trying to change it. What we must do now is try to change the need for abortion.
I guess we should quit having laws banning murder since murder continues in America (and we ban murder). Maybe we should ban rape since rape will continues (and we pass laws against rape). No, evils in society have always been banned. Morality have always been regulated from rape, pedophilia, murder, perjuy, and other facets. Abortion isn't having a disease or coffee. It's the intentional destruction of an innocent human being. Therefore, it's legitimate to eliminate Roe v. Wade. I believe in having more adoption, crisis centers, and others means. Yet, it's all talk when Roe has increased abortions in America. The only way you will ever stop abortion is eliminating Roe along with measures to help women.
win this election