Two More Faux Lifers Sell Out

In early June, Indiana governor Mitch Daniels called for a "truce" on the part of social conservatives saying that issues like abortion have to take a back seat to the country's economic problems. He went on to suggest that all other concerns are insignificant by comparison and that social conservatives are, "going to just have to agree to get along" until these fiscal issues are resolved.

So let's see if I've got this straight. Currently, the American abortion industry is slicing open and bleeding out somewhere between 3000 and 3500 helpless babies per day. Meanwhile, those of us in the pro-life movement are battling for these children on as many fronts and in as many ways as our resources will allow. But Daniels, who actually claims to be pro-life, wants us to suspend our efforts even though this slicing and bleeding business will continue unabated.

I realize that I am not the smartest guy in the world, but I'm pretty sure that a "truce" is when both sides of a conflict agree to suspend hostilities. In this case, since we are the only ones being told to stand down, it seems to me that what Daniels is calling for is more of a "unilateral surrender" than a truce.

In any event, now comes Mississippi governor, Haley Barbour, who also claims to be pro-life. Wednesday morning, he told reporters in Washington that he agreed with Daniel's assessment. He then went on to characterize social issues like abortion as merely "rabbit trails" that drain resources away from more important economic concerns.

Naturally, political supporters of these two have been quick to defend them by claiming that their pro-life bona fides are above reproach. These people are either lying, stupid or drowning in a sea of denial. No one who is sincerely pro-life would ever suggest that financial issues trump the wholesale slaughter of innocent children. Daniels and Barbour, and others like them, may be willing to fatten their bank accounts by tossing the unborn to the sharks but, make no mistake, legitimate pro-lifers are not.

Of course, these people will counter with the point that if we don't solve these financial problems the country may not survive and I have no doubt that this is true. But I am going to say something that is equally true but no one wants to hear. Simply put, if our nation continues to butcher the innocent children that God sends to us, then we have no right to survive and no long-term prospects of surviving. We can make America into the most financially prosperous place on earth with a military that guarantees no aggression against us from anyone else on the planet. But if we think that will insulate us from the holocaust in which we are currently engaged, we are living in a fool's paradise.

Returning to Daniels and Barbour, as news headlines go, the fact that a couple of high-level politicians are exposed as phonies does not rank up there with "Japan Surrenders!" In fact, it may not even be the real story here.

Both of these guys have been mentioned as potential presidential candidates in 2012 and both of them are savvy campaigners. Barbour was even the Chairman of the Republican National Committee from 1993 to 1997. So why would such seasoned politicians say these things when there is no need to do so and the elections are still over two years in the future? My suspicion is that these statements might be "trial balloons" designed to test whether the pro-life community would be willing to accept a pro-abortion Republican next time around. In effect, it may be that we are being conditioned to believe that, as loyal Americans, we should be willing to sell-out our principles for the "greater good" of the country.

Now I realize that what I'm saying here has a kind of "grassy knoll" feel to it. But believe me, in the world of American politics, stranger things than this happen every single day.

The Power of Self-Delusion

Over the years, George Orwell's observation that some things are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them has proven to be frighteningly accurate. One example was recently seen in a Durango, Colorado, newspaper article in which local abortionist, Richard Grossman, was asked when he thought life begins. His answer was that he believes in the strength, intellect and fortitude of women and that they are the ones who make that decision. He went on to say that it is women who empower the fetus.

It is no secret that the pro-life community is constantly accused of being a bunch of knuckle-dragging troglodytes who've been mesmerized by religious superstition while the abortion lobby is portrayed as deep-thinkers guided only by logic and science. Yet here, a practicing baby-killer is asked a question related to science and biology and he responds with some moronic new-age mumbo-jumbo. And, of course, he got away with it because the "journalist" who wrote this puff piece was a card-carrying member of the mainstream media who knew better than to question the "party line" on abortion.

In any event, to appreciate the shear idiocy of this idea that women must be allowed to decide when life begins, imagine two children who are conceived at the same moment. Three months later, one mother talks about her baby, knows its gender, has named it, and has even seen it on an ultrasound screen. Meanwhile, the other mother contends that the life of her child hasn't begun yet and decides to have it killed by the goons at Planned Parenthood. The pro-choice argument is that both of these mothers are correct, despite the fact it is physically, biologically and scientifically impossible for that to be the case.

Also, if women are going to be the ones who decide when life begins, why should they lose that right by giving birth? Let's say there's a woman who sincerely believes that life doesn't begin until speech is possible and she kills her three-month-old daughter. Should she be charged with murder? What makes her belief that life begins at speech less valid than another woman's belief that life begins in the second trimester, or at viability, or at birth, or at any other arbitrarily chosen point? And what gives society the right to charge this woman with murder? After all, if she claims that the life of her child had not begun, and if she's the one who gets to make that decision, then by definition she did not commit a murder. Or is it that only pregnant women have this mystical ability to know when life begins and, somehow, they lose it at the moment they are no longer pregnant?

Like I've said a million times before, the entire pro-choice position is a testament to the fact that the human brain is the only organism in nature that has the ability to intentionally deceive itself. And if you need further proof of it, in this same article, Grossman said that the reason he does abortions is because he is a Christian.

Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics