Skip to main content

@FeserEdward..sophistry from RFK Jr.: “Every abortion is a tragedy… But I think ultimately I don’t trust government to have jurisdiction over people’s bodies. I think we need to leave it to the woman…

Let’s consider this bit of sophistry from RFK Jr.: “Every abortion is a tragedy… But I think ultimately I don’t trust government to have jurisdiction over people’s bodies. I think we need to leave it to the woman… I think there’s a very, very good argument, a compelling argument, that the state has an interest in protecting a fully-formed fetus. I absolutely think that that argument is very convincing. But again… I don’t trust the state and I think we need to trust the woman… We should leave it to the woman, we shouldn’t have government involved… even if it’s full term… I don’t think [abortion] is ever OK… [But] I think we have to leave it to the woman, not the state… [It’s] a terrible, terrible choice… You can’t overstate how bad that is… [But] ultimately we have to trust women.” So, RFK Jr. says both that abortion is very, very bad but also that women can be trusted on this matter more than government can be. Really? Let’s compare their records, then. Suppose we add up the casualties from wars that the U.S. has been involved in since Roe v. Wade. The biggest are the Gulf War, the war in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War. Total casualties for the Gulf War are estimated to be somewhere between 175,000 and 300,000; for the war in Afghanistan, between 176,000 to 212,000; and for the Iraq War, between 150,000 and 650,000. If (implausibly) we go with the highest figures, that comes out to 1,162,000 deaths. Suppose we add to that deaths from all the smaller conflicts that might be attributed to U.S. government action. Suppose (implausibly) that that came to another 1,000,000 casualties. Suppose we add as well yet other deaths caused by government, such as those resulting from police shootings. Police shootings (of people of any race, whether armed or unarmed) these days come to about 1,000 people a year. Even if we supposed (wrongly) that there have been that many shootings every year since Roe v. Wade, that would add at most another 50,000 deaths to the government tally. So, we’re still actually well short of 3 million deaths, but suppose for the sake of argument we concluded that about 3 million deaths could be directly attributed to government action in the U.S. since the time of Roe v. Wade. Notice that I am not getting into the question of whether any or all of these wars were justifiable or not, what percentage of the police shootings were justifiable, and so on. But suppose, for the sake of argument, the worst case scenario that none of these deaths was justifiable. How many abortions have there been in the U.S. in that same period? Over 63 million. In other words, over the last fifty years, women have caused at least 60 million more deaths of innocent people than even the U.S. government has. (Christian and other cultural conservatives tempted by libertarianism should take a moment to let that sink in.) So exactly why, Mr. Kennedy, should we “trust women” more than governments to do the right thing where the “terrible, terrible” evil of abortion is concerned?
Quote
Here we are... in solitude
@HotiSophia
Replying to @FeserEdward
Full clip provides more context. His emphasis is on economic support (lack of which causes 60% of abortions), a point MacIntyre also makes. RFK would do more to minimize abortions than Trump would. x.com/BryceMLipscomb
Show more

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...