Roger and Me (and abortion)

January 5, 2007 in 2008, Religious Conservatism, Sanctity of Life

I’ve been called out by Roger Abramson, again, but this time it’s about my post regarding Mitt Romney’s current position on abortion. You can read my post (here) and Roger’s reaction (here).

Abramson makes much of a Pew Poll showing that only 11% of the population agree with my position on abortion, but even if a mere 11% of the population are “socially Conservative,” that fact is only marginally relevant in electoral politics, and even less so in GOP primary politics. This confusion on Abramson’s part could explain why he challenges my assertion that Romney’s pro-life-with-various-exceptions position isn’t “socially Conservative.” The category “socially Conservative” (I should probably capitalize the “s” in social) isn’t a relative or even subjective term. It has a generally accepted meaning, and the point of my post was that Romney’s abortion stance doesn’t qualify.

On a similar point, I think it is wholly legitimate for Social Conservatives (or as I like to say, Conservatives)–as opposed to moderates, or squishes or Libertarians or Abramsons to define what Social Conservatives believe. Roger may agree with this, assuming that he was hung up on my imprecise “-ly” after “social.”

Lastly, I’ll address what Abramson refers to as his “Law of Presidential Abortion Politics”:

The more logically consistent a presidential candidate’s position on abortion is, the less viable that candidate will be.

Well, I disagree, and my position on abortion is logically consistent, as was that of Ronald Reagan, for example.

A candidate’s position on abortion is only one of many factors that contribute to his/her likelihood of success; so Roger’s “Law” isn’t necessarily validated by a perception that there are no “Pro-life” (as I define it) candidates in contention at present. But that being said, it isn’t difficult–if someone is so inclined, to state a logically consistent pro-life position while acknowledging there is not consensus on prohibiting abortion and noting that a president doesn’t govern by edict.

UPDATE: Adam Kleinheider over at VolunteerVoters.com thinks that Roger’s right. Of course, I think that Adam is wrong, so there you go . . .