Why We Can’t Let the Media Give Pelosi’s Latest Abortion Outrage™ a Pass [Video]

I’ve already written that nothing Nancy Pelosi can say about abortion will shock me anymore.

Turns out I was wrong.

Yes, her latest Pelosi Abortion Outrage™, prompted by the entirely appropriate question posed to her by John McCormack of the Weekly Standard, still came as no particular surprise to me:

Screen shot 2013-06-13 at 5.04.10 PMAsked what the moral difference is between what Dr. Kermit Gosnell did to babies born alive and aborting those same infants moments before birth, Pelosi refused to answer.

“As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this,” Pelosi said. “I don’t think it should have anything to do with politics.”

Of course, Pelosi’s words are incoherent at best and offensive any way you choose to take them.

Pelosi, the top Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, thinks her faith shouldn’t have anything to do with politics.

Okay, so what. We already knew that about her.

But what particularly struck me during this latest Pelosi Abortion Outrage™ was this realization:

If not her faith, what does she think should inform her opinion on abortion? Medecine? Science? Biology? Embryology? Fetal pain research? The Natural Law? What?!

This is a question the press never demands to know, and it’s time for the press (and us) to start demanding it.

Pelosi, like so many dissenting Catholics, has chosen to ignore the faith’s teaching on respect for life, especially unborn human life.

What this has really allowed her and others to do, is also ignore what medicine, biology, embryology, medecine, science, natural reason and the whole array of human knowledge, experience and consensus can tell us about abortion.

If you watch the whole exchange (and I encourage you to watch it below) you can hear the other members of the press in the gallery laugh when Pelosi responds to McCormack’s question by saying “You’re probably enjoying that question a lot, I can see you savoring it.”

For Pelosi, McCormack asking her a question about the morality of killing unborn vs. born infants of the same age is laughable. 

And apparently, it’s a joke the press is in on.

Well, I’m not laughing.

If Pelosi is basically a dunce when it comes to the Church’s social teaching, what other expertise can she call upon to accredit her efforts to legislate and argue against protections for the unborn?

This is not an arcane or theoretical question I’m posing (and the press should pose to her) — there is a bill set to be voted on in the House of Representatives next week which would create a federal ban on abortions after 20-weeks nationwide, because the evidence shows that unborn babies killed after 20 weeks experience pain (CatholicVote supports the ban).

Does Pelosi have even a basic understanding of the issues addressed by this bill?

Looking at the same transcript of her back-and-forth with McCormack, it would appear she does not:

PELOSI: This is not the issue. They are saying that there’s no abortion. It would make it a federal law that there would be no abortion in our country. You’re taking the extreme case. You’re taking the extreme case. And what I’m saying to you what happened in Philadelphia was reprehensible. And I do not think you.

TWS: [Inaudible]

PELOSI: I’m not going to have this conversation with you because you obviously have an agenda. You’re not interested in having an answer.

In fact, the bill would not create a federal law against all abortions — it would simply outlaw abortions after 20-weeks, much like the partial-birth abortion ban prevented that particularly heinous form of abortion.

If we lived in an age where the media was not totally in the tank for abortion and did not have a vested interest in shielding Pelosi from every awkward question and embarrassing situation, the story that would come out of this exchange is not only that Pelosi totally ignores the teaching of her own church, but that she opposes that teaching while simultaneously possessing zero knowledge or expertise beyond her own misguided opinions on the issue.

I care greatly about the need for Pelosi to be made aware of her ignorance and abuse of her Catholic faith in the public square.

But I also care greatly about the plight of the unborn and so, while I don’t expect the media to do our job of calling Pelosi out for her ignorance of Catholic teaching, I do call upon the media to do its job and ask Pelosi to her face the basic questions about key debates like abortions after 20-weeks that they should be asking everyone, Catholic or not.

Here is video of Pelosi’s exchange with McCormack:

39 thoughts on “Why We Can’t Let the Media Give Pelosi’s Latest Abortion Outrage™ a Pass [Video]

  1. Chris says:

    Pelosi, like most radical pro-aborts, refuses to be honest and discuss whether a child who is old enough to feel pain has the right to life.

  2. Larry says:

    This post is based on the premise that a fetus has the right to be born and that women don’t have the right to determine when and if they they will bring a fetus to term. As such, this post is erroneous and thus, without merit.

    1. Slats says:

      Larry, all innocent human beings have a right not to be murdered. Conversely, no one has the right to murder an innocent human being. The two premises you cited happen to be true and written in the very fabric of what it means to be human. They are truer and more crucial, in a sense, than 1+1=2.

      Therefore, your comment is erroneous and thus, without merit.

      1. Larry says:

        One becomes a human being at birth. Therefore your points are without merit.

        1. Slats says:

          Larry, I remember you getting into a discussion of sorts about this back when the Gosnell thing first broke. You went on and on about how absurd your opponents’ positions were, basically with sheer ridicule as your means of argumentation; e.g. “What a joke that you would say blah-blah is true, how ludicrous, I’m just going to sit here and laugh at it.” At no point did you back up any assertion you made, and it was pretty apparent that your position and thought had as its central premise that “a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy.” From that you argued backward that therefore, a “fetus” couldn’t possibly be a child, shouldn’t be called a child/baby/human being, whatever. Once again, your “argument” was recurrently “everyone knows that…” and making fun of anyone asserting the contrary.

          The thing is, what is a right? Is it something that inheres in human nature and should always exist across all cultures and times, or is it something human beings can differ about in various times, places, and cultures, and which are created by consensus or fiat?

          If the latter, that would mean that you are arguing that, because the U.S. Supreme Court declared that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy, the right therefore exists. Sometimes, it sounds as though that is in fact the basis for your arguments about these matters. However, from that kind of basis for the existence and creation of rights, ***rights can change,*** and people can argue that given rights can be done away with by appropriate means, because the rights are arbitrary to begin with. That means that, within this understanding of rights, by no means can you, Larry, use as an argument ender, “Women have this right, so there.” The right is by its very nature contingent by that definition of rights.

          If, on the other hand, rights inhere in human nature and never change, then one has to show the connection between the right and human nature.

          From that standpoint, let’s look at the assertion, “A woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy.” Does this inhere in human nature? It seems difficult to argue that because, prior to the discovery of medicines which induced abortions and surgical methods which could kill the fetus without killing the pregnant woman (note: we should certainly acknowledge that those things were discovered in ancient times), there was no apparent natural right, because the technological means didn’t exist. Another person could “end the pregnancy” prior to that, but not without the cost of the woman’s life or significant external injury to/violence against her.

          Where do human beings, persons, human lives, come from? You are arguing that they instantaneously come into existence when a woman gives birth. That’s funny; medical science indicates that, just prior to the birth, there was something which looked an awful lot like the born baby in the mother’s womb, had all of the same functioning organs as that born baby, and had his or her own heartbeat for several months prior to the birth. Moreover, that entity had the same DNA as the born baby, which happens to be different from the mother’s DNA. As a matter of fact, that distinct DNA code came into existence the same instant in when the ovum from the woman’s body was fertilized by the sperm from the body of the man with whom she had relations.

          By all conceivable definitions of what human life and a human being is, that entity in the uterus was a human life and a human being prior to being born.

          Now, secular people might argue and discuss at what point in fetal development that human life, that human being, becomes a person. Is it when there’s a heartbeat? When there’s brain activity? By the time all of the major organs and limbs are in place? Well, by any of those standards, he or she’s a person by no later than three months’ gestation. What about, when, with proper medical care, he or she could survive outside the womb? At this point in medical technology, that’s perhaps five and a half calendar months, and getting closer and closer to five as the technology improves.

          But that’s not what you’re saying. You are stating very firmly – not arguing, but simply stating repeatedly and stubbornly as somehow commonly-acknowledged fact – that it’s not until birth.

          Now, why would you say that? An eight-month-gestation fetus in the womb has all the parts and physical traits that he or she would have if his or her mother gave birth to him or her. What’s the difference? Oh, that’s right – it’s location. That’s the whole point. That’s what it keeps getting back to in your argument. Because the fetus is inside the body of another human being, about whom you assert she has the right to fatally assault said fetus to remove the offending creature from her body. In other words, you are asserting that the woman’s right to kill the fetus is a priori – it comes before any consideration of the moral status of what the fetus is. To put it bluntly, ***you keep saying that the fetus isn’t a child, isn’t a human being, isn’t a person, isn’t a baby, for the solitary reason that it’s inconvenient to your assertion of the right to an abortion,*** and for no other reason.

          Since many people in the world – including many who support so-called abortion rights – would disagree with you about whether or not the fetus is a human being or human person, it’s patently ignorant to throw the “everyone knows a fetus isn’t a child/human being/human person/baby” trope out there, because the vast majority of adult human persons would not only not “know” that, but dynamically assert the contrary. Furthermore, since so many, including many who support abortion rights, would assert that a fetus at a certain point of gestation most certainly ***is*** a child/human being/person, and since such a creature is certainly, in terms of actions, completely innocent, and since his or her life is at stake, then any assertion that the right to “terminate a pregnancy” inheres in human nature ***must*** deal with the moral standard of the fetal child (finally, the real term that should be used in this discussion). It’s not the fetal child has no moral standing/is not a child because the woman has a right to end her pregnancy, but rather that whether the woman does in fact have such a right needs to consider how such a right can be claimed in the face of the innocent fetal child’s moral standing.

          Of course, for Catholics, that’s right where the argument ends. The creature in the womb, from conception onward, is a human life and human being, and almost certainly from conception also a person, who in any event has a right to life, a right not to be subjected to deadly assault, and a right to be where he or she belongs by nature which trumps any and all competing rights the mother (for that’s who she is) might have or assert. You keep asserting these things about abortion rights and the non-child/person/baby-hood of the fetus (fetal child!) which I think are clearly question-begging and unfounded even from a secular perspective, but which you moreover ***must*** know good Catholics – or even minimally adequate Catholics – are never going to agree with. You can keep throwing it against the wall to see if it sticks, but I think it’s safe to say that here, within this discourse, it’s never, ever going to. Respectfully, I think that’s rather blind on your part.

          And furthermore, ditto what Antonio said. The issue in Thomas’s original post is not so much about the moral and legal standing of abortion so much as whether Pelosi’s words and actions are befitting of a Catholic. Even if the premise of your original comment here were true (it’s not; it’s ontologically false), it would still have zero bearing on the “merit” of Thomas’s original post, because the issue is what Catholics believe, not what you believe.

    2. Antonio A. Badilla says:

      Your post is without merit. You are right about the premise that a fetus has the right to be born and you were once a fetus with the right to be born. Your dependency on your mother to live in and outside the womb, never gave your mother the right to kill you. Pelosi claims to be a “Catholic” at the same time that she states tenets that are clearly anti-Catholic. If you are a secularist or an atheist and hold the position that indeed a fetus is no more than just a non-human being and not deserving of life, well, what can I say, but Pelosi is claiming to be a Catholic and as such her statements are an scandal to anyone who happens to be a believer.

  3. Abigail says:

    Quite fascinating that she doesn’t actually answer the question, then gets indignantly defensive when the question is repeated? And what’s the deal with so-called Catholics “professing” their being “practicing Catholics” … then simultaneously attempting to claim that their faith informs & has nothing to do with politics. I’d say it was two-year-olds’s logic, but my son at two employed better use of logic!

    1. Slats says:

      Yes, her attitude of righteousness out of a standpoint which has no conceivable righteousness is the most appalling feature of the video.

  4. Antonio A. Badilla says:

    Isn’t the Archbishop of San Francisco her ordinary, and given that the man has a backbone, should we not expect her excommunication soon?

  5. Beth DeSimon says:

    She may say she is Catholic, but she does not believe believe in in and practice the Ten Commandments. She has sold her soul. Some people only see what they want to see, their perception and deny anything else. I pray that She gos and sits with Jesus in Adoration and that she has an enlightening and conversion of heart. Please Dear Father, Son and Holy Spirit, bring your grace and truth to Nancy, I Pray. AMEN!

  6. John says:

    Let’s remember two things:
    1. People are not trash, no matter their morality. Folks who comment on this site should know better.
    2. Excommunication has a couple of purposes: to prevent scandal and to call apostates, heretics, or public sinners to repentance. It is something that sometimes needs to be done, but not with relish. Let’s frame our comments with a bit more nuance and reflection. That said, Pelosi’s stance on abortion is disgraceful; every Catholic in her district should be united in their opposition to her.

    1. Erick C says:

      I totally agree there, but if she was excommunicated unfortunately I think the media would try to portray her as a “victim” of some sort. (Liberal media likes to twist the facts sometimes) Nevertheless it is important that we continue to pray for our government, evangelize to other Catholics about our faith so we won’t have future cafeteria-Catholics like Pelosi, Biden etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.