American Papist: Not Your Average Catholic!: Pelosi's mind-blowingly incompetant discussion about abortion

I don't use the phrases like "mind-blowingly" and words like "incompetent" lightly.

(update: the latest coverage of this story - here.)

But this time Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi really managed to surprise me, and this after I didn't think her stock could fall much lower with me, having forced myself through the first chapter of her horrid little book Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters. I didn't realize reading could bring about motion sickness.

Anyway, this episode transpired in today's Meet the Press interview of Mrs. Pelosi by Tom Brokaw. The initial question asked was "When does life begin?"

Sometimes in my coverage I have to tease out fine logical points or show how an interlocutor is skilfully twisting his words to evade the truth.

.... this is more like shooting fish in a barrel.

(you can scroll down to the bottom of this post and watch an embedded video of the exchange.)

The first question:

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?" what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.

Oh dear, don't set the bar so high for yourself. After all, I doubt at this point you know what you're actually going to say. At least I hope not.

And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know.

They have not been able to define when life begins? They all gave up? Nice slip on Senator/Saint - yes, they are different. I'm glad you can name one Church Father. Shall we try for two? No? Didn't think so. So by Augustine's own definition, abortions after three months would be killing a human life - whoops! - let's get off talking about Augustine in that case. "We Don't Know"? Yeah, that's safer.

The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions.

Oh I see, the entire proceeding historical survey is irrelevant. No reasons given? Good - those just make the issue confusing. It's amazing how modern legislation can create very clear distinctions where centuries of philosophers and theologians couldn't. Thank heaven for our clear-headed legislators.

This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.

Now we've expanded the sphere of ignorance to ... all humanity. But what about the people that claim to be able to tell you when life begins? Actually, even legally, the definition is birth. So even the law claims to be able to know somehow, or at least to provide some forms of human life with the right to life.

[Now things get interesting as Brokaw tries to get the conversation back on track:]

[REP. PELOSI] As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who've decided...

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it...

REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

MR. BROKAW: ...begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that.

"50 years or something like that." Gee, you're probably really regretting beginning this conversation with the words "this is an issue that I have studied for a long time", considering these sorts of generalizations, with narry a single specified noun to be found.

The rest quickly becomes mush as she tries to hit her "panic button" talking points...

So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions.

Panic Button #1: No matter what the truth is, God wants us to do whatever we want.

And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions.

Panic Button #2: Hey, I hate abortions, too. You didn't think I liked abortion did you? *shocked face*

That's why we have this fight in Congress over contraception. My Republican colleagues do not support contraception. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must--it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think. But that is not the case.

Panic Button #3: Oh, and hey, people who hate abortion actually don't want to fix the problem because they actually want problem pregnancies - why else wouldn't they support contraception?

So we have to take--you know, we have to handle this as respectfully--this is sacred ground.

Panic Button #4: Quick, use religiony-type words like "sacred" so people feel they have to agree with me.

We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been--and I'm not saying Rick Warren did, because I don't think he did, but others will try to.

Panic Button #5 (the ultimate one): Ya know, this is really just politics, and let's just both be honest that abortion has nothing to do with faith, reason or reality. I'm a politician - I know these things.

Mr. Brokaw mercifully ends it:

MR. BROKAW: Madame Speaker, thanks very much for being with us.

REP. PELOSI: It's my pleasure. Thank you.

Now, if you've made it this far. I commend you. Here's a couple related links:

I think the only thing I could be more dissapointed by other than this passing for an accurate explanation of the Church's teaching on a subject, would be letting her claim to be an informed Catholic while giving it.

(And, as promised, the video...)