“Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.” This truth was expressed by G.K. Chesterton in the Illustrated London News in 1909 — and was illustrated perfectly by comedian-cum-commentator Bill Maher just the other night.
Friday’s episode of Real Time with Bill Maher went viral owing to a much applauded “Kid ‘N Prey” monologue he delivered on pedophilia, but later comments on prenatal infanticide (abortion) were equally eyebrow-raising. In fact and quite ironically, after insisting while discussing child sex abuse that it’s “every adult’s job to protect [children],” Maher would essentially say that this obligation didn’t extend to children inside the womb. Oh, and “children” they are, he tacitly admitted. To wit:
While honorably defending pro-lifers against propagandistic charges that they “hate women,” the commentator said that the real issue with prenatal infanticide is that “they think it’s murder.”
“And it kind of is,” Maher then confessed, before adding, “I’m just okay with that — I am.”
“I mean there’s eight billion people in the world,” he then stated, explaining his rationale. “I’m sorry, we won’t miss you. That’s my position.” It’s also something else: a teaching moment in more ways than one.
That is, prior to the above statement, Maher expressed genuine confusion over certain prenatal infanticide-related matters. Making the point that “he can respect the absolutist position,” he said, “If “you believe it’s [abortion is] murder … I don’t understand the 15 week thing or Trump’s plan [to] leave it to the States. You mean, so killing babies is okay in some states?” It’s a good question, one warranting a good answer.
It’s true that the positions Maher criticizes could in certain cases reflect a lack of, or flawed, principle, or the subordinating of it to power ambitions. It can also result from something more noble, however.
Issues in politics have different dimensions: The moral, the legal, and the practical/political. It is correct that if abortion is murder a day after 15 weeks, it’s also murder a day before 15 weeks. In fact, as I’ve explained:
Think about where the “pro-choice” position takes us. It doesn’t really matter what month one says human life “may” begin because we’re always presented with the same correlative questions. What week of that month? What day of that week? What hour and minute of that day? And, then, what second of that minute?
This lends perspective. For what we then must accept is that one second the intrauterine entity isn’t a person, but the next second it — although I suppose at that moment we can say “he” — somehow magically becomes one. And this isn’t even the moment of conception, a seminal event without which there would be no development in the womb whatsoever. So how … does this humanizing transformation take place?
Yet despite the above, another issue that must be considered when legislating is that, as German leader Otto von Bismarck put it, politics “is the art of the possible.”
Like it or not, it’s not the art of “You get whatever you want, right now, no questions asked,” but of the possible. And if all that’s politically possible at present is a 15-week ban and a state-by-state solution, does accepting this necessarily mean you’ve dispensed with principle?
Of course not. For there’s another principle: Doing some good is better than doing no good at all. Saying that because we can’t save all babies we’ll save none would be immoral.
Moreover, with prenatal infanticide as a state issue there’s also the legal aspect: It had always been recognized, including before the flawed Roe v. Wade decision, that prenatal infanticide was a state issue under the Constitution. How can one accept this if believing abortion is murder?
Well, consider that “typical” murder (killing a born person) has itself always been a state issue. In other words, saying that intrauterine murder should also be reflects ideological consistency.
Remember, too, that constitutional adherence is a moral imperative as well, as undermining the Constitution would threaten all our rights and, therefore, human life itself.
Of course, we could respect the Constitution and save lives by enshrining within it a pro-life amendment. Yet making this politically possible will require cultural change.
None of this is to say that every “pro-life” Republican is a principled person who, merely out of political necessity, is accepting half a loaf legislatively. In fact, many lack conviction and, what’s more, are unhappy that Roe v. Wade was overturned. For they can no longer wash their hands of the issue, saying “The courts have decided!” They now must take a stand.
Returning to Maher’s prenatal infanticide comments and overpopulation concerns, do realize that close to 100 nations worldwide have fertility rates below replacement level (2.1 children per woman) and that global population is poised to start declining this century.
Errant though they are, what Maher’s comments aren’t is surprising. His atheistic world view holds that man is a mere cosmic accident — an organic robot comprising some pounds of chemicals and water. So what’s wrong with “terminating” these robots when they’re inconvenient? Conclusion:
It’s only recognition of man as a divinely created being that engenders true respect for life.
Lamentably, though, society makes decisions based on emotion at least as much as via the intellect. And a major reason the blithe disregard for the unborn exists is that they’re largely unseen. Being unable to protest, talk, complain, or even vote, the “art of the possible” for them personally is not possible at all.
