I haven't caught up on the podcasts of the Sunday shows yet (ABC and Fox affiliates here in Cleveland run theirs at the same time and the latter usually wins out for me on which to watch first, leaving This Week for listening on the way to work).
But I to have to give a tip-of-my-dusty-ballcap to Chris Wallace (shown above with his famous old man), host of Fox News Sunday. He had Mayor Happy Pants on this morning for the first half hour and during a generally-good interview, finally pressed Giuiliani on a point that I've been waiting years for someone to get a little heat on.
Rudy's standard line on abortion is very close to the practically-patented Clintonion stance that abortions should be 'safe, legal and rare.'
The first item is meant to satisfy...everyone. No one wants to think of women relying on clothes hangers to do anything but hold up a shirt.
The second is to pacify those who, obviously, believe that there is some right, whether from God, the Founders or the Burger Court, that allows for some degree of reproductive freedom once pregnancy has commenced.
But the third part has always irritated the hell out of me in its escape from scrutiny.
While he didn't push him too far into the hole, Wallace did press Rudy on why abortions should be rare. Are they morally wrong? Is it more morally-correct to opt for adoption or raising a child that you might not be willing or fit to raise? Why is it not the moral equivalent of the options often on the table?
My point here is not so much to sit in judgement of one's stance on this, but to beg the media to go after Hillary and anyone else who attempts to use this lame cop-out without fully atriculating why they believe that abortions should be rare if already legal and safe.
But I to have to give a tip-of-my-dusty-ballcap to Chris Wallace (shown above with his famous old man), host of Fox News Sunday. He had Mayor Happy Pants on this morning for the first half hour and during a generally-good interview, finally pressed Giuiliani on a point that I've been waiting years for someone to get a little heat on.
Rudy's standard line on abortion is very close to the practically-patented Clintonion stance that abortions should be 'safe, legal and rare.'
The first item is meant to satisfy...everyone. No one wants to think of women relying on clothes hangers to do anything but hold up a shirt.
The second is to pacify those who, obviously, believe that there is some right, whether from God, the Founders or the Burger Court, that allows for some degree of reproductive freedom once pregnancy has commenced.
But the third part has always irritated the hell out of me in its escape from scrutiny.
While he didn't push him too far into the hole, Wallace did press Rudy on why abortions should be rare. Are they morally wrong? Is it more morally-correct to opt for adoption or raising a child that you might not be willing or fit to raise? Why is it not the moral equivalent of the options often on the table?
My point here is not so much to sit in judgement of one's stance on this, but to beg the media to go after Hillary and anyone else who attempts to use this lame cop-out without fully atriculating why they believe that abortions should be rare if already legal and safe.
No comments:
Post a Comment