Friday, March 29, AD 2024 3:06am

My Body My Choice, Drill Baby Drill, Hmm… Not So Much

There are two political mantras which have come to symbolize big problems in our mainstream party choices- “My body, my choice!” and “Drill baby! Drill!”. The liberal and conservative camps get so excited when their political heroes shout out these short catch-phrases. For me, they represent some really huge moral deficiencies.

The “My body, my choice!” crowd simply ignores the truth claim that there is another body in the mix that isn’t being accounted for- that’s why the abortion procedure is not viewed like a normal medicinal/surgical treatment. Yes, that “other body” happens to be temporarily residing inside their mother’s body- but that does not change the facts of life for the unborn human life in the first phases of natural development. A parallel mantra could be introduced at Democratic Party functions- whereupon a budding candidate could shout out “My house, my choice!” and go on to explain that he means that any child living in his home is his property and if he wants to invite some hunters over to kill one or all of his kids- that’s his business- keep the government out of it! And keep your rosaries off his home mortgage- what happens in one’s home stay’s in one’s home- that’s what the right to privacy means. Now, I cannot yet imagine a crowd of Democrats cheering that line- but if it got framed somehow as a woman’s right or as a right of privacy- then it would be on par with abortion on-demand logic.

Now “Drill baby Drill!” always made me cringe even before the BP fiasco- back when I was a candidate for Florida State House I promised to lead the protests against off shore drilling here in Florida. It seemed to me that in the “Sunshine State” this would be the perfect place to begin bold and broad experiments in net-metering solar energy- turning every home and business with a roof into an energy producing unit- start with one county and see how it goes. The very idea of just mindlessly supporting more drilling in the Ocean to get at more oil without exhausting other less polluting options- seemed like the type of thinking that leads to the groupthink of machismo- macho men who like drilling holes and blowing up stuff, drilling random women ( if they could), and parading their toughness in public to perhaps offset their own deeper masculine insecurities. These are the images I have when I hear some politician shouting “Drill baby! Drill!”- and when Sarah Palin does it I feel even more repulsion- what is this she-male macho thing that seems so big in America these days?

It isn’t that drilling for oil offshore is to be completely and always off-limits- but like with nuclear energy anywhere- there had better be a very, very, very good system of regulation, safety precautions, step-by-step plans for the mitigation of any possible scenario of ecological mishap/disaster. My concern when I was running for office was first off to be rational/ecological/economical in pushing for governmental leadership in beginning the transfer in energy production over to state-of-the-art solar opportunities- not waiting for the “market forces” because let’s face it America is a mixed economy of government/corporate/labor union power blocs- the free market exists in a laboratory somewhere perhaps- I am not an ideologue so I look at the real world as she stands. Government can stand on the side with the energy corporations that wish to keep Florida and America dependent on fossil fuels, or the Government powers can attempt to direct the economic forces a bit to give some new kids on the block, with new energy ideas,a chance to take root and prosper- the common good is the whole purpose of government according to Catholic social doctrine- corporations hardly hold the common good as their first priority- that priority belongs to satisfying the major investors of said corporate entity. So, for example BP is first and foremost concerned with their stock and profit position before they are concerned over the human lives and environment- this drives them to try at all turns to withhold information that may be helpful to the cause of stopping the oil leak but damaging in terms of their public relations position.

Now that my concerns over drilling offshore have been confirmed in a way I couldn’t have anticipated because even I assumed that before the government gave permits to oil rigs, the companies would have some very elaborate tried and true means of keeping huge spills like the one in our Gulf on the books and ready to go should a disaster take place. I was opposed to the oil drilling because I felt that even the normative spillage would be too much given the fragile state of affairs in all of our waterways. Now I am just beyond myself in outrage over the incompetence of government- who would appear to be a subsidiary of the major corporations rather than an impartial protector of the common good, and the greed of the corporate entities- which I know is always a major factor for bad decisions that work against the common good on a regular basis.

So- now we have the American Left cheering the killing of babies, and the American Right cheering for the macho drilling for oil right off of our shorelines- perhaps some are re-thinking that one or are just trying to find excuses to explain that the whole problem is because of government regulations rather than having better regulators on the job. But I think “The Leak” is so obvious that many people are going to want to discuss this more openly and honestly than in the past. But the American Left is clearly not facing such an existential crisis of “faith”- the killing of the unborn continues going on quietly and effectively- the damages are well concealed in incinerators and in human hearts broken by the choice to kill their own children. So, maybe it will take more pressing demands from pro-lifers to get the facts straight about what abortion means, what it looks like, why it is so completely evil as to beg for our society to be judged as criminally collectively insane. So take a look at the “Silent Scream” type documentaries that show abortions caught in the act of killing actual developing children- and take a good, long look at the photos of aborted children, and then look at documentaries like “In the Womb” which show the normal pregnancy and normal situation of a child that is nurtured by parents and society- how good that is, and how bad it makes the “My body, my choice!” advocates appear- they begin to look like the crowd scene in “Horton Hears a Who” when the masses are whipped up to destroy the lives that only Horton can hear- but finally the Who-villers are heard- by Horton, then by a child, then slowly and surely, everyone can hear the tiny lives. Right now, as a pro-lifer, I am in the shoes of Horton, and I’m not giving up until every Who-ville destroyer can hear the voice of the unborn- maybe through the ultrasound documentaries, maybe just in the stillness of their own quiet hearts- away from the howling mobs at political rallies.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
30 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
john rand
john rand
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 12:03am

The problem is the mixed economy you were mentioned. The government nominally regulates the oil companies, not to mention forcing them to drill off-shore (much riskier than on-shore) and then they are forced to operate in deep water environments compounding the risk. Then the contribution heavy legislators try to protect the oil companies by capping their liability. If they were fully liable for damages does anyone think they would not have taken many more precautions, like the acoustic shut-off valves required in Europe?

restrainedradical
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 2:46am

If they were fully liable for damages does anyone think they would not have taken many more precautions, like the acoustic shut-off valves required in Europe?

Me. They are fully liable for clean up costs. Only their civil liability is capped and even that can be lifted upon a showing of gross negligence. You think billions isn’t enough of an incentive to install shut-off valves? What we should have learned from the banking crisis and Enron and Worldcom before that is that large corporations left to their own devices, will take excessive risks. Poor corporate governance (including poor executive compensation structures) is partially to blame but there are also unavoidable agency costs.

I never had a problem with “drill, baby, drill” but I never understood the cost until this tragedy. Sometimes the risks are just too great in relation to the potential benefits. If deep-water drilling can’t be 100% safe, it should be banned entirely and I’m very skeptical it can be made 100% safe.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 7:15am

What would be the effect on the economy of $10 a gallon gasolin/heating oil?

As if THE OIL SPILL (an accident that big gov and big oil can’t fix, big gov inspected and didn’t shut down the rig or ensure safety violations were corrected!) is the moral equivalent of 47,000,000 murders of unborn babies that big (the one you voted for) government sanctions, protects, and funds.

People employ moral and intellectual contortions to salve their consciences for voting for Obama and abortion.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 7:21am

BIG government refused (Jones Act a relic of Depression econ protectionism) to allow many foreign specialized ships to help mitigate the enviro damage.

The environazis are giving Obama a free pass on this one, too. Also are Obama-worshiping imbeciles . . .

Ryan Haber
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 9:36am

T. Shaw wrote:

What would be the effect on the economy of $10 a gallon gasolin/heating oil?

As if THE OIL SPILL (an accident that big gov and big oil can’t fix, big gov inspected and didn’t shut down the rig or ensure safety violations were corrected!) is the moral equivalent of 47,000,000 murders of unborn babies that big (the one you voted for) government sanctions, protects, and funds.

People employ moral and intellectual contortions to salve their consciences for voting for Obama and abortion.

I do not think this very well written article was attempting to draw a moral equivalency between the spill mismanagement and the abortion holocaust. I did not get that sense at all. The author was attempting to bring the light of faith to bear on two current problems in our society – and they are both current problems – and the deficiencies in how partisan political factions have addressed them. Christians owe it to society to offer something more than mere party spirit – which St. Paul calls a work of the flesh (Gal 5:20). We owe it to society to provide a critique based on the Word of God.

The author’s point stands, and stands correctly: it is wicked to brutalize the living space entrusted to us by God for the profit of a very few; it is also wicked to murder children. One does not detract from the other. A Christian is not bound to rush off and vote Republican because they pay lip service to the pro-life cause (they have now fronted pro-choice presidential candidates and the chairman of the party is on the record as being pro-choice). We cannot in conscience vote for an abortionist, either.

We must start looking for and thinking of third options.

T. Shaw, your response kind of demonstrates the need for the underlying principle that the author is applying. I have gone to the March for Life 23 or 24 of the 33 years I’ve been alive. I’ve spent hundreds of hours praying outside of abortion clinics. And I can honestly say that some pro-lifers go ballistic about the topic. If one says abortion is a big problem, another flips out and says it is the problem, and that moreover the first person – praying at the same clinic – is “soft” on abortion because they didn’t use the same word choice or because they think terrorism is also a problem. This attitude is uncharitable and often counterproductive.

Paul Zummo
Admin
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 10:08am

hey have now fronted pro-choice presidential candidates

Rudy Giuliani went nowhere in 2008, and no pro-choice GOP candidate has really made much of a dent in the presidential primaries.

and the chairman of the party is on the record as being pro-choice

Michael Steele has said many stupid things in the year and a half that he has been chairman, but he has not ever said that he was pro-choice.

Ryan Haber
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 10:24am

Mr. Zummo,

You are incorrect, sir. Michael Steele said in an interview with Lisa DePaulo of GQ on 11 March 2009:

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.

You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.

Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.

Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!

(http://tiny.cc/1hg4q)

Note the interviewer’s shock at his answer. His subsequent clarification flatly contradicts what he said in the interview. Flatly.

Laura Bush made some choice pro-choice comments early in her husband’s tenure, including that she thought Roe v. Wade should stand. She has recently reiterated these sentiments.

These aren’t insignificant slips. This is the chair of the RNC/GOP and the wife of a president-elect (at the time of her first instance). How strongly do you think Bush could feel about it to marry a woman who might very well abort her own child? How strongly do you think the GOP in general can feel to allow Steele to stay in his position after a tip of the cards like that?

Moreover, these aren’t isolated. RINO is getting to be a bit trivial when it comes to abortion, given the number of votes cast in Congress in favor of abortion with (R) after their name.

Paul Zummo
Admin
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 10:28am

Michael Steele answered that question as horribly as he could, I won’t deny, and he’s been cringe inducing at times as chair as the head of the RNC. But he is not pro-choice.

Laura Bush made some choice pro-choice comments

I didn’t realize that Laura Bush ever ran for President or was a GOP candidate.

ow strongly do you think Bush could feel about it to marry a woman who might very well abort her own child?

This is honestly one of the silliest comments I have ever read, and the leap of logic here hurts my brain.

RINO is getting to be a bit trivial when it comes to abortion, given the number of votes cast in Congress in favor of abortion with (R) after their name.

Which votes in Congress “in favor of abortion” have occurred recently where there were large numbers of Republicans voting for said measure. Specifics please.

j. christian
j. christian
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 10:34am

If deep-water drilling can’t be 100% safe, it should be banned entirely and I’m very skeptical it can be made 100% safe.

That’s a pretty high hurdle, and I’m not sure the cost-benefit calculus justifies it. Yes, this is a major environmental accident, and there is a need to reconsider the engineering involved in deep sea drilling, but there are vast deepwater oil reserves that will probably need to be tapped even if we make a best-case switch to alternative energy.

John Henry
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 10:42am

If driving/flying/the Church/schools/electricity/fire can’t be 100% safe, it should be banned entirely and I’m very skeptical it can be made 100% safe. Really?

Ryan Haber
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 10:49am

Michael Steele is pro-choice. He said it. He wont’t say it any more, but he is. Wisc. Congressman Paul Ryan said on MSNBC a few days after the Michael Steel affair:

“There are pro-choice Republicans in Congress. There are pro-choice Republicans that is I represent in Wisconsin. We are a big tent party. I’m pro-life. Michael Steele is pro-choice. And you know what? We both fit within the tent of the Republican Party.”

Hmmm…

I do believe that George W. Bush is pro-life. As for Laura Bush, she was the president’s other half. Would you marry a pro-choice woman, Mr. Zummo? I do not think it a trivial point at all that a “pro-life” president did.

Republicans in Congress are voting pro-life now because they are voting anti-Obama. They were singing a different tune when Dede Scazzofava was running for Congress, weren’t they?

Phillip
Phillip
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 11:05am

Steele’s comments during the interview may have been sincere or may have caught him off guard. Here is his clarification after the interview. Take it as you will:

“I am pro-life, always have been, always will be.
I tried to present why I am pro life while recognizing that my mother had a “choice” before deciding to put me up for adoption. I thank her every day for supporting life. The strength of the pro life movement lies in choosing life and sharing the wisdom of that choice with those who face difficult circumstances. They did that for my mother and I am here today because they did. In my view Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed. I realize that there are good people in our party who disagree with me on this issue.
But the Republican Party is and will continue to be the party of life. I support our platform and its call for a Human Life Amendment. It is important that we stand up for the defenseless and that we continue to work to change the hearts and minds of our fellow countrymen so that we can welcome all children and protect them under the law.”

Paul Zummo
Admin
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 11:05am

Would you marry a pro-choice woman, Mr. Zummo?

I almost did.

Republicans in Congress are voting pro-life now because they are voting anti-Obama. They were singing a different tune when Dede Scazzofava was running for Congress, weren’t they?

This comment makes no sense to me whatsoever. What does Dede Scazzafova’s aborted (sorry for the pun) candidacy have to do with pro-life Republicans and how they vote? There are non sequiters, and then there are comments like this.

And again, I ask you to identify the votes in “favor of abortion” that large numbers of Congressional Republicans have made. Perhaps you’re thinking of the health care bill, in which a whopping zero Republicans voted in favor of? Specifics would help.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 12:22pm

Today is Flag Day and the 235th anniversary of the United States Army.

Pray for our gallant troops!

Pray for Victory and Peace!

God bless America!

Ryan Haber
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 12:40pm

Charlie Crist, prior to running for governor of Flordia described himself as pro-choice. Now an independent, he just vetoed an ultrasound/informed-consent law (http://tiny.cc/vw6yr).

Arlen Specter sat as Republican senator for Pennsylvania for twenty seven years with an increasing approval rating from NARAL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter). He has switched political affiliation, but not his voting pattern.

Reps. Lance and Frelinghuysen of NJ are both Republicans who consistently vote pro-choice.

Tom Ridge, former governor of PA, was on the record at the time as being pro-choice.

Rob Ehrlich, former governor of my own fair state of Maryland, a Republican, voted consistently pro-choice except in the most extreme cases. He is joined by Wayne Gilchrest (R, MD-1) in this basic stance. Connie Morella, a Catholic and Republican, served Maryland for 16 years as a congresswoman, never failing to get NARAL’s ringing endorsement.

George Pataki, New York’s governor for eleven years, was pro-choice the whole time, and proud of it. Susan Molinari served New York’s 13th in like fashion through most of the 1990s. Sherwood Boehlert served three different districts from 1983 to 2007-ish, pro-choice the whole time. Benjamin Gilman who served three districts from ’73 to ’03 was on NARAL’s good list – he scored 100% with them. A Republican.

Do I really need to continue? Really?

Paul, we’re getting pretty far afield from my point and from the author’s. I am not trying to gun down the GOP. I am not going to sell my soul to them, either, just because “the Dems are worse.”

Jay Anderson
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 12:55pm

“Do I really need to continue? Really?”

You mean, since you didn’t really answer the question asked?

“I ask you to identify the votes in “favor of abortion” that large numbers of Congressional Republicans have made.”

I’d say yeah, you probably need to continue.

No one denies that there are pro-choice Republicans (but, interestingly, you seen to only be able to name a couple of EX-Republicans, some FORMER Governors, and a handful of FORMER congresspersons).

Paul Zummo
Admin
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 12:58pm

Ryan:

Everybody knows about these particular men. I never said that the GOP was perfect – far from it. Clearly there are numerous pro-choice Republicans; however, they are the minority. You still haven’t responded to my question about specific votes where large numbers of Republicans have voted “pro abortion.” You can’t find it because no such vote exists.

Even the list you gave is pretty weak. Crist has been exiled in favor of a strongly pro-life candidate, Specter is gone and would have lost to Toomey had he not switched parties, Pataki is gone and is considered a joke by most Republicans, and Ridge is also no longer active in politics. And then of course we see what happened to people like Giuliani and then Scazzafava.

Yes, there are pro-choice politicians within the GOP. You have not made your case that they represent a significant enough interest within the party to continue this holier than thou third party shtick.

Jay Anderson
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 1:00pm

And I write what I wrote above as someone who comes fairly close to despising the Republican Party. The GOP has its own culture-of-death issues that make membership in that party untenable.

But, honestly, it’s not even a close contest for who bends over backward the most in service of Moloch.

RR
RR
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 1:05pm

j. christian, my position on this has change. Had the leak been plugged early, I would have no problem with deep-water drilling but this has proven far costlier than I’ve ever imagined. Costly enough to consider an outright ban.

Kevin in El Paso
Kevin in El Paso
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 2:34pm

Oh Please!
“It seemed to me that in the “Sunshine State” this would be the perfect place to begin bold and broad experiments in net-metering solar energy- turning every home and business with a roof into an energy producing unit- start with one county and see how it goes. The very idea of just mindlessly supporting more drilling in the Ocean to get at more oil without exhausting other less polluting options- seemed like the type of thinking that leads to the groupthink of machismo- macho men who like drilling holes and blowing up stuff, drilling random women ( if they could), and parading their toughness in public to perhaps offset their own deeper masculine insecurities.”

So, green weenie senstitivities drive a stake in the heart of on-shore, and shallow water drilling. So companies are (maliciously I would say) left with the most dangerous, most potentially disastrous (in terms of liability), and most dangerous (to the environemnt and other living things) option of drilling deep offshore.

If you saw this happening in a horror movie, you would be shouting at the screen “NO! Don’t go through that door!”

Then somehow, we seem to get to the author’s point; the people doing this drilling are testosterone-crazed mysogynists who offend the more refined among us.
Please excuse my disgust as I call you what you deserve to be called- a petty little wimp!

And while you are huffing and puffing, please explain how all the solar collectors and wind farms in the world obviate the need for even one reliable fossil or fissile-fueled plant. If you have fixed the ultra-high capacity electrical charge storage problem, then you ought to be too busy becoming a trillionaire to spend time on this blog.

j. christian
j. christian
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 3:09pm

RR,

I suppose our expected value calculations are just different. Although this spill is very bad, I look at Ixtoc I and conclude that it is not a world-ending disaster. There are clear engineering lessons to be learned from this — BOP rams actuated manually or by secondary means, anyone? — and I expect the likelihood of another such accident to be remote.

On the other hand, most of the large reserves left to be put into production are of the deepwater variety, such as the recent discoveries off Brazil. Like it or not, oil is the whole energy game right now. Unless it becomes economically viable to produce oil from kerogen shale, I don’t see where else it’s coming from. What other choice do you think we have?

RR
RR
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 3:45pm

I don’t know how much oil we get from deep-water drilling off American shores but I’m sure it’s a much less than we get from other sources so I doubt a ban would add more than a few cents at the pump. A small price to pay in my guesstimation, especially considering that we have relatively cheap gas to begin with.

Blackadder
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 3:50pm

And it’s not like the oil is going anywhere. If future technology makes it easier to get at deep sea oil or we get desperate, it will always be there.

j. christian
j. christian
Monday, June 14, AD 2010 3:58pm

I took “ban” to mean indefinite and global; what you and BA are saying sounds more like a national moratorium, which is a sensible conclusion given the current state of the technology and regulatory regime.

Phillip
Phillip
Tuesday, June 15, AD 2010 1:08pm

Though part of the problem seems to be that BP may not have followed standard industry practices. Time will hopefully sort out the truth:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704324304575306800201158346.html?mod=MKTW

Ike
Ike
Wednesday, June 16, AD 2010 10:02pm

I’m sorry, but it’s just hard for me to take the article seriously. It calls Sarah Palin a “she-male,” it says off shore drilling is some form of machoism, it gives no summary of the events leading up to the spill- in which government’s culpability is severe- it somehow associates “drilling random women” with looking for and aquiring oil (and come on; who is traditionally more promiscuous, environmentalists or conservatives), and it assumes that the government can somehow breathe life into solar technology, and through an act of legislation, cause a break through in technology by willing it (pumping money into a project doesn’t count as much more).
The autor doesn’t address any of those concerns, and is just plain intellectually dishonest in his conjured associations between promiscuity and offshore oil drilling.
As I finish the post, I question my sanity that I commented on this article. I won’t be commenting again, so take my objections for what they are.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top