TDPS: The Consistent Life Ethic is Neither Consistent Nor Ethical...It's a Sham!

Run time: 07:07 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2momo55Q8A   Posted on YouTube: January 04, 2011 By YouTube Member: MidweekPolitics Views on YouTube: 298   Posted on DU: January 06, 2011 By DU Member: celtics23 Views on DU: 315

 
From: www.davidpakman.com | Subscription: www.davidpakman.com/membership | YouTube: www.youtube.com/midweekpolitics

David: Welcome back to the show. You know, I get a lot of emails from people, Louis, on topics we often talk about, including abortion, death penalty, euthanasia, war. And lately, a handful of people have said you know what? There's a middle of the road position on any kind of politics related to life, right?

So the idea is, the premise, and I'll tell you if I agree with it or not, is how could you possibly be in favor of legal, safe abortions, but against the death penalty, right, because hey, abortion is killing people, and the death penalty is killing people. How could you be...

Louis: Right. And if you're pro-life, how can you be in favor of the death penalty?

David: If you are... well, that's the reverse. On the other hand of it, how can conservatives who are violently against abortion because it is humans taking the lives of others possibly favor the death penalty? And they may say well, fetuses haven't committed crimes and the people who are getting the death penalty have. And there's other components here, there's euthanasia.

So the consistent life ethic, the premise of it, it's actually something that even though people have been emailing me recently, it's from 1983. Joseph Cardinal Bernardin originally developed it, and the idea is let's be consistent when it comes to life, right? So that means no abortion, no euthanasia, no death penalty, and that somehow the idea is this is a middle-of-the-road, we-like-life type of position. And it could not be more bogus. And I'm going to say now, please, no more emails telling me that the consistent life ethic is some kind of middle-of-the-road solution to areas in politics where decisions about lives are to be made. It's not. It's not by any means.

And there's a number of reasons why. Number one, the idea that there are two sides, those who want killing and those who want living, and that if you go in the middle, you're going to be able to save more people. That's a bogus component, first of all. But number two, I mean, let's be honest here. A lot of the so-called pro-life, consistent life positions don't actually save lives, right? I mean, let's talk about legal and safe abortions. Let's outlaw legal and safe abortions to keep people alive? We know that doesn't happen. Right, Louis? I mean, what will people do if they don't have access to a legal, safe abortion?

Louis: Get illegal, unsafe abortions.

David: That's exactly right. And as we saw with the Colorado Amendment 62, which was defeated, trying to prevent abortions even in the case of the health of the mother and child, anti-abortion legislation can actually lead to two deaths in cases. So the idea that we're going to be consistently pro-life by outlawing abortions is silly. It's an insult, really, is what it is.

Now, the other issue is that these factions are not going to unite. The consistent life ethic says well, let's get the people on the right who are for the death penalty and against abortion to concede no more death penalty, we'll get the people on the left who are for safe abortion but against the death penalty to concede on their end, and then we'll just come up with this great pro-life thing and everybody will live happily ever after. That's also just a fantasy that will never take place, right? I mean, these are politically ingrained positions that people have, they're not going to change on the idea that this is going to bring together policies that result in less people dying.

Louis: Right.

David: The other issue altogether is what about euthanasia? The consistent life ethic says you should have no euthanasia. But honestly, what is anti-life about believing that one should have the right to end their own life? Nobody's killing anybody, in the sense of an abortion or death penalty, right? Supporting euthanasia is not supporting the killing of other people, it's saying people have rights to choose much the same way, by the way, that having access to legal and safe abortions allows people to do.

Louis: Well, now you can get into suicidal stuff, too. I mean, should a perfectly healthy person be able to kill themselves?

David: We're not talking legally here, though.

Louis: Right.

David: I mean, this is a compendium of political beliefs. And the other thing that really annoys me about the consistent life ethic people that email me, there's something that is incredibly anti-life which goes on, has been going on for 10 years, and really for longer than that, and that's sending soldiers into war. If we're going to talk about pro-life, anti-life policies, we have to think about what barometers are we using when we think about is it worth sending soldiers into harm's way where they will die?

Louis: Right, but that's never part of the equation.

David: But it should be. If we're going to think about the morality of life and death and the politics of life, we have to think about not only our soldiers, but the thousands and thousands of innocent civilians in other places that, as a result of wars, are dying. What's pro-life about that?

So I would encourage everybody who has been emailing me about the consistent life ethic, please, think about the wars that we're in. Think about accusations of death panels that are just there to preach fear to people. And think about the number of deaths that would happen if we didn't have access to safe abortions. And if you need evidence of that, just look at Africa. Look at where they don't have access to legal and safe abortions, and you tell me how it's working. Where am I going wrong on this, Louis?

Louis: No, that sounds pretty good. I think we've nailed it.

David: Let's focus on a real culture of life, not this bogus pro-family, pro-life conservative sham that we hear tossed around. No more pointless wars, no more death penalty, no more escalation on nuclear proliferation, and no more trying to control women having the ability to make legal and safe choices about their bodies. That to me would be furthering the culture of life.

Louis: You kind of sound like a dictator a little bit, too, when you're saying this stuff, though.

David: Well, no, it's just my opinion.

Louis: True.

David: Where am I wrong? Tell me where I'm wrong on this thing.

Louis: No, it sounds good, but I mean, eventually, either people are going to ultimately agree with you or you're going to ultimately agree with the people that you're speaking out against right now. I mean, right? Eventually, there's going to have to be some type of compromise.

David: Well, there will either have to be a compromise, but that's not necessarily the case. Let me think... think about it this way. Gay marriage, right? There's two sides now. There's not going to be a compromise. Gay marriage is going to be legal, because it's the right thing. So the idea that compromise is going to be the way of the future is not the case.

Louis: Or perhaps compromise is the wrong word. But eventually things are going to move in one direction.

David: Well, whether people like it or not, there are going to be laws that legislate what is and isn't legal.

Louis: Right.

David: And hopefully, a real pro-life ethic is going to happen, not the one that's been hijacked by the conservative right.



Transcript provided by Alex Wickersham. For transcription, translation, captions, and subtitles, contact Alex at directtranslation@gmail.com.