The "Pro-Life" President

Joseph Farah is stark raving mad.

I'm beginning to think George W. Bush is one of the very worst presidents this country has ever endured.

The man seems to have no moral center, no fundamental governing principles.

Thus my decision not to vote for him in 2004. But Kerry too lacked a moral center. It's too bad most people just love voting for the lesser of two evils. Some tell me it's a riot. I'll pass.

The latest issue that brings all this to mind is the president's decision yesterday to approve over-the-counter status for an abortion-causing, morning-after pill called Plan B.

But Bush is pro-life! I know this because he tells me so, and, being a good little born-again, Bush knows it's wrong to lie. Then again, evidently he doesn't know it's wrong to invade foreign countries. Lacking a moral center may describe the affair perfectly.

There's only one way to interpret this. Bush's pro-life claims were phony from the beginning. No one can seriously argue against embryonic stem-cell research while approving over-the-counter abortifacients. It just plain makes no sense.

Farah might take some heat for this, but I'm fairly certain that anyone possessing a cretin's grasp of history and current affairs as well as--and this is crucial--the IQ of a food processor has abandoned the sinking Bush ship. Still, while I completely disagree with Mr. Farah when it comes to the war on terror, it's good to see he got this much right.

Tangentially, it should be added that this is what comes from inproper understanding of the reasoning behind a particular immorality. Not only is embryonic stem cell research wrong; not only is Plan B nothing more than afront to human dignity; but so too is the creation of any human life in a lab--even if it is to be implanted later in a womb.

Yesterday's post seems especially pertinent. It is only with the understanding of the entire philosophical basis for a doctrine that one can adequately defend it. Bush has note doubt been told what most implictly understand: abortion is murder; but because he doesn't know the reason for this, namely that in the eyes of God all human life is sacred, he fails to make a logical extension of this governing principle.

The reaction to Bush's foible will determine whether the Republican's will have to nominate another candidate who is only theoretically opposed to abortion or whether a more honest gentleman, such as Guiliani, can be free to grab the reigns. We will shortly see whether the Religious Right is as pathetic as the ruler they have, at least thus far, foolishly supported.