Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Pelosi's Hypocrisy on Choice

Source: Catholic Culture : Latest Headlines : Pelosi rips ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act’

Pelosi is at it again, showing her true colors when opposing a proposed law which says taxpayers don't have to fund abortions.

The law says in part:

‘None of the funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

It also states:

‘Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting any individual, entity, or State or locality from purchasing separate abortion coverage or health benefits coverage that includes abortion so long as such coverage is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by Federal law and such coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds required for a federally subsidized program, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

Pelosi has called this proposed law: “the most comprehensive and radical assault on women’s health in our life time.

While I am sure most practicing Catholics already know that there no similarity between her views and those of the Catholic Church, I would like to use this article to discuss a fundamental error she makes.  That is her unquestioned and unquestionable assumption that abortion is a matter of choice and that choice is a good no matter what the person chooses — so long as that choice supports abortion.  Any seeking to assert the view of the person who believes the unborn is a human person is savaged as being a terrible person with an evil, intolerant and ignorant intent.

Such a view can be boiled down as "What's mine is mine.  What's yours is up for grabs."

Here's the problem with her views.  If the concept on "Choice" is an inviolable good, then it logically follows that those who choose in a manner differently from her and her allies are equally valid.  So under the concept of "choice," if I believe I should not have my taxes go to abortion, this should be my choice.

This is a choice Pelosi would deny.

So she doesn't mean "choice" is good.  She means the right of a woman to have an abortion is good, and those who believe such a right kills an unborn child have no "choice" in the matter.

There is nothing tolerant about such a view.  There is no consideration for what is true in what she says.  Either we accept Pelosi's view or we are misogynists who want to control women.

However, those who oppose abortion are not misogynists with evil intentions.  Rather they believe:

  1. All Acts Are [Evil] which [Deliberately Kill an Innocent Person] are [Evil]  (All [B] is Part of [A])
  2. All [Abortion]  Are Acts which [Deliberately Kill an Innocent Person] (All [C] is part of [B])
  3. Therefore All acts of [Abortion] are [Evil] (Therefore all [C] is part of [A])

Or, to use a Euler Circle:











If we let A be All acts which are evil, B be all acts which deliberately take an innocent human life and C be acts of abortion, the logical conclusion is that all acts of abortion are acts of evil.

Now if Pelosi were truly for "Choice," she would recognize that to force a taxpayer  — who believes all abortion is evil — to pay for abortions is to deny such a taxpayer  any choice in the matter.

Therefore, we can see she is either logically inconsistent, and hypocritical, on the matter, or she is using "Choice" as a euphemism to conceal her real views.

Indeed, what we have is a failure of Pelosi (whether through carelessness or through deliberate evasion) to consider the necessary element of truth.

Aristotle famously stated: “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.”   So, if Pelosi speaks of abortion as "a choice," and considers herself a "champion" of choice, it means we must look at what "choice" means.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "Choice" as:

1 an act of choosing.

† the right or ability to choose.

2 a range from which to choose.

† something chosen.

However we can employ a reductio ad absurdum on this to show not all choices are seen as equally valid.  A dictator who chooses ethnic cleansing, for example, is exercising his right to choose what he wants to do.  However, most of the world will recognize such a choice is morally objectionable.  So from this data of universal revulsion, we must recognize the principle that when most people speak of the freedom to choose, they really assume The freedom to make choices which are not morally wrong.

So, those who want to support the right to "choose abortion," have the obligation to show that abortion is a choice is morally correct or neutral.  However, instead, "Choice" is automatically presumed to be "Good" without establishing why the choice of abortion is good or neutral.

This shows Equivocation on the part of Pelosi.  She uses "choice," as a term, but does not mean Choice in the sense that we are free to choose to do as we ought.  Nor does she mean that all of us are free to do what we personally think right because she explicitly rejects the possibility of opposing taxpayer funded abortion.

So it is time to call Pelosi on her equivocation and call her to make a formal stand on what she really means.

Thus, if Pelosi wants to champion "Choice" properly speaking,  she must recognize she must treat the choice of those who say "abortion is evil" the same as those who support abortion.  If she wants to champion "abortion," she must be up front about it, not hiding behind weasel words which soften what she is really in favor of.

I think it is clear she isn't in favor of "choice" in the proper, non propaganda definition of the word.  Rather she uses "choice" as a weasel word to soften the impact of what she really champions: "abortion on demand."

Since she does not favor the right of the one who believes abortion is evil to refuse to pay taxes to support it, we can see under Aristotle's definition, that she says of what is not that it is, which means she does not speak the truth.

No comments:

Post a Comment