Gov. Scott Walker has said that he doesn’t care whether the Legislature sends him a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy with an exception for rape and incest or not. He’ll sign it either way.
That position indicates a remarkable lack of depth on the part of the governor about an issue that should be all about deep thinking.
The abortion issue pulls us into a discussion and some reflection on the fundamental question of when life begins. If a person’s faith or thinking on this topic leads them to the conclusion that life begins at some point before viability outside the womb, well, than it’s logical that they would view these abortions as the taking of a human life, and I can understand their strong opposition to it.
My own view is that because the question of when life begins is a personal philosophical one and not one that can be answered objectively we should leave it up to the woman and whoever she decides she wants to bring into the equation.
But paradoxes and outright hypocrisy abound. Many of the same folks who are arguing now that science tells us that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks are adamant science deniers when it comes to climate change. They pick their science when it’s convenient to their own beliefs.
I could also have more respect for pro-life advocates if they were consistent on the issue of unwanted pregnancies. It’s amazing to me that Gov. Walker touts his defunding of Planned Parenthood in the same breath that he claims that he’s defending unborn life. Most of what Planned Parenthood does is about trying to prevent the very unwanted pregnancies that result in the abortions that Walker decries.
And then there’s the lack of consistency among pro-life conservatives about what happens after an ill-timed or unwanted pregnancy is carried to term. It seems that pro-life legislators also support a cluster of issues around defunding public schools and social programs that would benefit the very children they insist on being brought into this world. The attitude seems to be something like, “Hey, we got you born; now you’re on your own, kid. You’re welcome.”
So, I could respect a pro-life belief if it was sincere and consistent, if it came with a package that included investing in programs that prevented unwanted pregnancies and which supported children born to parents who were ill-prepared economically, emotionally or otherwise for the commitment. Oddly, we can usually be certain that pro-life legislators also oppose the very things that would prevent unwanted pregnancies and the policies that would care for the kids that came from them.
Which brings us to Scott Walker’s truly remarkable position. How can any thoughtful person not care if there is an exemption for rape and incest? Actually, the morally consistent view would be that there shouldn’t be such an exemption. After all, if the primary concern here is that a fetus can feel pain, then what makes that pain any less significant because of the way in which it was conceived? If the governor really cared about what he says he cares about, he should say that he opposes such exemptions.
On the other hand, a thoughtful pro-life position might be that the crimes of rape and incest are so severe that they actually trump the pain of the fetus, that compassion for the victim should outweigh compassion for the fetus. That too would be a position based on a moral view and some serious thinking on the subject.
But to shrug, as the governor has done metaphorically and pretty much literally, about the question is to admit that none of this has anything at all to do with principle. Scott Walker simply wants to collect another item in the crazy Republican presidential scavenger hunt. Hard line on immigration? Check. Guns for everyone, everywhere? Got it. Commitment to do nothing on climate change? Yep. Ban abortions after 20 weeks? Okay, what’s next, and who cares about the details?
This is just more evidence why Scott Walker is intellectually and morally unfit to be president...or governor.
