The Monsters Among Us

Although I disagree with their beliefs about abortion completely, I’ve generally respected the “abortion is murder, no exceptions” group far more than the right-wingers who would make exceptions for rape or incest. After all, if you don’t distinguish between the supposed murder of a “pre-born baby” and a newborn, then how could you possibly allow abortion exceptions for rape or incest? Would you not have to allow the murder of a newborn, or a six week-old, or anyone whose conception was brought about by either incest or rape?

Under the principles they espouse to justify eliminating abortion rights, what’s the difference? Whatever difference they come up with certainly devastates the premise of the “pro-life” position.

But what if they can’t articulate a difference between an abortion in the case of rape or incest (which they would allow) and a mother’s murdering her three year-old son because he was the product of rape or incest?

Then what kind of monsters are they?

I’ve been asking myself this question for quite awhile now. For instance, way back in 2001, when John Ashcroft was nominated to be attorney general, his “pro-life” supporters lauded him for his integrity. Why? Because he said that even though he personally opposed abortion, he would enforce federal laws protecting abortion rights.

But would a man of integrity really be willing to enforce laws that allow what he considers to be mass murder on an unspeakable scale, just so that he could have the job of attorney general? And if he really weren't willing to enforce such laws, then would a man of integrity lie about it during his confirmation hearing?

That’s some set of values these people are showing.

And now the question has come to the fore again, this time via the candidacy of purportedly pro-choice Rudy Giuliani. He’s not only still standing, but he’s the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.

Although the Christian Right is divided, some are supporting Giuliani, and significantly more are seriously considering it. Polls consistently show that many anti-abortion Republicans who know Giuliani’s pro-choice record nonetheless support him.

And that terrifies me. Not because of what it says about Giuliani’s viability, but because of what it says about the Christian Right.

These are people who argue that abortion is murder, and that Roe v. Wade has allowed the wholesale slaughter of innocent babies. When it comes to the right to life, they tell us, a clump of cells and even a fertilized egg are indistinguishable from a newborn baby – or from a full-grown adult, for that matter.

So it’s not at all surprising that they sometimes use the term “holocaust” to describe abortion in America. If you really believe that abortion is murder, then what term would be more appropriate?

What kind of monster would support a candidate who advocates what they consider to be the right to slaughter innocent people?

Well, Pat Robertson, for one. And, according to the polls, a sizeable number of “pro-life” Republican voters.

The moral surrender these people are willing to make is breathtaking - and monstrous.

This is perhaps the most important moment in the history of the Christian Right. That they would even consider supporting Giuliani either in the primaries or in the general election demonstrates quite starkly just how utterly devoid of genuine morals the movement is.

And they have the audacity to wear the mantle of “values.”

It’s time to stop ceding the moral high ground to these people. We truly have monsters walking among us. We need to expose them for what they are.