On Individual Choice.

Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican party, is in trouble over a remark that abortion is 'an individual choice'. What could he mean by that?

He insists that he's pro-life and was merely illustrating the practical aspects of the question. And as a practical matter, he is right. All choices eventually devolve into what a person decides to do at a given time over whatever question may be under consideration at that point. No matter how many laws tell us that theft is wrong, someone somewhere will still abscond with the property of someone else.

The trouble is that attitude, properly called "cavalier and flippant" by a conservative wag, if made a benchmark of moral analysis, leads to very dangerous conclusions. Liberal conclusions, I should add. If moral choices, not only about abortion but on any moral issue, are only individual choices, what do we have left?

No true morality, that's what.

We need to understand that there's a difference between the practical aspects of an issue and the question of how we ought to handle or address the issue. Sure, some folks will choose to do wrong no matter what. But are we obliged, as neighbors and friends and countrymen, to tolerate it when the natural moral code clearly shows a given behavior to be a moral evil?

Of course not. So the question then becomes, did Mr. Steele really mean it that way? In light of his remarks about Rush Limbaugh and gay marriage, it is fair to wonder. Is he the type of Republican who wants a big tent, an attitude which I must say simply translates into a desire for political gain? Or is he a Republican of virtue who wants what is right, not only for the benefit of the people he would lead, but for rightness sake? Because if he doesn't want that, then he may as well exercise his individual choice and join the party of the moment and become a Democrat. At least he would be among his philosophical peers.