Posted on January
18, 2018
Lamb’s Lame Excuses
PA pol fails to justify abortion
by
Daniel
Clark
Pro-life Republicans have good reason to be
apprehensive about March’s special election in Pennsylvania’s 18th
congressional district. The man who
vacated that seat, disgraced GOP Rep. Tim Murphy, proved to be so phony on the
abortion issue that he privately disavowed his own position, and even
encouraged his mistress to abort when he thought she’d been carrying his
child. There’s no reason, however, for
Keystone State conservatives to question the sincerity of their party’s nominee,
Rick Saccone.
It’s the opposing candidate, Democrat Conor
Lamb, who is being openly hypocritical.
According
to a report by John Delano, political analyst for KDKA news in Pittsburgh, both
candidates claim that they are personally opposed to abortion. The difference is that Lamb says abortion on
demand should remain legal, and is silent on taxpayer subsidies for Planned
Parenthood. Declaring personal opposition
to abortion makes a flimsy cover for a pro-abortion politician, as it has ever
since Jimmy Carter invented the tactic back in the 70s.
Saccone
opposes abortion because he knows it’s the killing of an already existing human
being. If it were practically anything
else, there would be no issue. Lamb, by
contrast, cannot explain why his personal disapproval of abortion does not lead
him to demand that it be banned, nor will the liberal media ask him. If they did, his answer would be even worse
than the ones he’s given so far. Years
ago, The Weekly Standard asked
“personally opposed, but” politicians exactly what it was about abortion they
personally opposed that did not require it to be illegal, and received exactly
no comprehensible answers. The response
from then-senator Arlen Specter itself consisted of approximately three
paragraphs poured out of a blender.
Lamb says, “A woman’s right to choose [abortion] has
been the law of the land for 45 years now, and I think it should stay that
way.” Well, where’s the personal
opposition in that? Is legal abortion
okay just because it’s “the law of the land”?
Abortion apologists have been using this dodge for decades, but who
accepts things he knows are wrong just because they’re currently legal? In a republic, the representatives of the
people create the laws and have the power to change them. For someone aspiring to become a federal
legislator, passively accepting something because it’s “the law of the land” is
a poor excuse – especially when the “law” in question was unconstitutionally
created by the judiciary, and not the legislature.
Perhaps
understanding the inherent weakness in that argument, Lamb piles on with the
assertion that “I’m also an American, and I believe very firmly in the
separation of church and state.” Gosh,
what a bold, patriotic stand. Too bad
it’s based on a bunch of erroneous liberal mindbarf. There’s nothing in the Establishment Clause
that means there mustn’t be a law against dismembering and killing unborn
children, just because certain religions frown upon it. Religion also informs us that it’s wrong to
steal. Does that mean Lamb thinks there
should be no laws against theft?
No, abortion alone benefits from the presumption that
it must be allowed precisely because it violates somebody’s moral code. That’s not a serious argument, but only a
rhetorical hiding place. If there were
no religions opposed to abortion, Lamb would latch onto some other excuse to
defend the indefensible practice all the same.
Pro-abortion politicians demonstrate their knowledge
that they’re wrong when they ask to be given credit for feeling
conflicted. In 1984, the media praised
vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro for her depth and thoughtfulness
when she said, “It’s an issue I’ve made my peace with,” but who talks like
that? Sarah Palin never had to make her
peace with the abortion issue. She
simply took the side she believed was right.
Another veep candidate, Joe
Lieberman, explained his senate vote in defense of partial-birth abortion by
warbling, “I wrestled with my conscience.”
More like he bashed it into submission with a chair while the referee
wasn’t looking. As long as he’d
separated himself from his conscience, why fight fair?
Ferraro and Lieberman went so far as to portray themselves
as the victims of the abortion issue, while lauding themselves for overcoming
it. In the context of tens of millions
of children being killed in some of the most grisly ways imaginable, what
really matters, as they present it, is whether or not a self-important
politician has attained closure.
When it comes to offering weenie excuses for taking a
position he knows perfectly well is wrong, Conor Lamb
is a rank amateur.
The Shinbone: The
Frontier of the Free Press
Mailbag . Issue
Index
. Politimals
. College
Football Czar