Vance’s incoherence on abortion
By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Oct 02, 2024
If J.D. Vance is the future of American conservatism— as some enthusiasts are saying, in the wake of his effective debate performance— then I’m afraid American conservatism has become incoherent on the abortion issue.
Last night Vance, who is a convert to Catholicism, and in the past has strongly endorsed a ban on abortion, offered no resistance to the liberal claim that women have a “right” to abort their babies. He clung adamantly to the line taken by Donald Trump, saying that the issue must be left to the states, signaling that he was willing to accept state laws that allowed for abortion in virtually all circumstances.
So when Vance finally did take a stand, and protest that the Minnesota law signed by Tim Walz is too extreme, his point was absolutely solid, but the logic that brought him to that point was suspect. Vance said that it is “barbaric” to allow (as the Minnesota law does allow, despite Walz’s mumbled disclaimers) for a doctor to refuse medical treatment to a baby who survives an abortion.
Yes, it is certainly barbaric to leave a helpless baby to die. But if it is barbaric after the procedure, why isn’t it barbaric a few minutes earlier, when the abortionist tries to kill the baby in the womb? Vance’s point makes sense only if he will forthrightly say that it is barbaric intentionally to destroy an innocent human life— a statement that he seems unwilling to make.
Oddly enough, as they debated the point, as Vance was being illogical while making a good point, Walz was quite logical while make a very bad— in fact evil— argument. Walz said that the rights of Americans should not be dependent on geographical location. He concluded therefore that if a woman has a right to abortion her child in Oregon, she must have the same right in Texas.
Walz is right in this sense: under the 14th amendment, the federal government is obliged to ensure that the fundamental rights of all Americans are protected in every state. He is wrong, of course, in his facile assumption that a “right” to abortion— nowhere mentioned in the Constitution— is one of those fundamental rights. But the principle behind the 14th amendment still holds. If an unborn child has a right to life in Texas, that child must have the same right to life in Oregon.
American conservatives can win the abortion debate only by driving home the realization that an unborn child is a human being. Although conventional public opinion strongly resists that realization, the argument can still be won, because biology is on our side. And once someone recognizes the unborn baby as a fellow human, the barbarism of the “pro-choice” position becomes unmistakable.
It is unmistakable in the Minnesota law; Vance was right to observe the barbarism of that legislation. Once the baby has been removed from the mother’s womb, there can be no more pretense that it is part of a woman’s body, nor that the doctor is providing the mother with “health care” by refusing to treat the child. The ugly truth of abortion becomes unavoidable: the very point of the procedure is the death of the baby.
Years ago I served on the board of a string of pregnancy-help centers that helped introduce ultrasound tests for clients. The results were astonishing. Before the machines were installed, roughly 75% of the women who came to the centers to explore alternatives would, sadly, opt for abortion. Once they had seen the images of their babies, about 75% chose to continue their pregnancies. Just giving the mother a glimpse at her unborn child flipped the odds of that baby’s survival.
Vance is understandably reluctant to confront the abortion issue head-on in today’s political climate. An effective politician must learn to count votes, and the votes aren’t available right now to enact serious restrictions on abortion— at the federal level or in most states. But the facts are available to swing public opinion, perhaps as dramatically as the ultrasound images changed the plans of abortion-minded women. Restrictive legislation won’t change public opinion; the pro-life movement must work from the other end. Gently persuade the American public to recognize the humanity of the unborn— to face the facts— and the logical implications are unavoidable.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: tmschroeder2790 -
Oct. 05, 2024 7:34 AM ET USA
It would seem fair to call JD Vance the apprentice. However, this begs the question of who is the master, and who is the Master. Vance needs our prayers for discernment and right formation and right judgement on this delicate and vital topic.
-
Posted by: grateful1 -
Oct. 04, 2024 10:08 PM ET USA
I second nantista9155's points. Yes, Phil, "biology is on our side." But biology is meaningless in the hands of the leftist ideologues who wield the levers of power in this country; that's why they can insist with only tepid pushback that a man is a woman if he says he is, & vice versa. After 50 years, Roe culture is entrenched & has has rotted us (including much of the Church) from within. I'll take half a loaf from Trump/Vance; if they win, I'll press them for more. Handwringing is useless.
-
Posted by: nantista9155 -
Oct. 03, 2024 4:32 PM ET USA
Very good points. Thank you, Phil. It should be noted, however, that Vance's mission in this debate was to make the case for the Trump/Vance ticket. As the VP candidate, he doesn't get to set the policies of the potential administration. Perhaps he can argue more forcefully and logically for life to his boss once elected. In any case, compromised as Trump's stance may be, there's no question whom Catholics and anyone pro-life must vote for. None at all.
-
Posted by: Randal Mandock -
Oct. 02, 2024 7:44 PM ET USA
Biology alone is not enough. A dog is a dog because it is born of a dog. But a dog does not have a human soul. So a dog can never be a human in disguise. A human being is distinct from say a Neanderthal by possessing a human soul conformable with existence in heaven. The dignity of being human comes from God, not from nature. Without a human soul, a person would not possess the rights that human dignity confers. The central issue of abortion is the existence of transcendental rights from God.