Brownback vs. Frum on Abortion

Reacting to Senator Sam Brownback's performance in the second GOP presidential debate, David Frum wrote that "surely even pro-lifers must have been revolted by his answer to Wendell Goler's abortion question?" Brownback was asked to defend his position that abortion should not be allowed in cases of rape.

Well, I'm one pro-lifer who thought Brownback's answer was pretty damn good, and showed a lot of courage. His response was only the second time I've heard a politician specifically defend this position in a major debate (the first being former Iowa Senator Tom Tauke back in a senate debate in 1990 I think).

Here is the debate transcript that Frum quotes:

MR. GOLER: Senator Brownback, no one thinks abortion should be available
casually, but there are often very, very difficult decisions to be made in this
case. Tell me, since you've opposed abortion in every instance except to save
the life of the mother, how you would explain to a rape victim, who does not
believe that life begins at conception, why her trauma should be compounded by
carrying the child to term.

SEN. BROWNBACK: That would be a very difficult situation, and it is a very
difficult situation. But the basic question remains. Is the child in the womb a
person? Is it a viable life? And if it is a person, it's entitled to respect.
And is it an innocent person?And I think that's the thing we've got to really
look at here, is, what are we doing? We talk about abortion, but abortion is a
procedure. This is a life that we're talking about. And it's a terrible
situation where there's a rape that's involved or incest.

But it nonetheless remains that this is a child that we're talking about
doing this to, of ending the life of this child. Will that make the woman in a
better situation if that's what takes place? And I don't think so, and I think
we can explain it when we look at it for what it is: a beautiful child of a
loving God, that we ought to protect in all circumstances in all places, here in
the womb, somebody that's struggling in poverty, a family that's struggling. We
should work and look at all life, be pro-life and whole-life for
everybody.

I don't see how Frum can think this is "revolting." Brownback recognized that this is a very sad situation, but that killing the child in no way makes it any better. The right to life for innocent persons, which precedes and makes possible all other rights, must be respected even in the hard cases, or it stands for nothing.

I gather Frum is somewhere between firmly pro-life and firmly pro-choice; I think he's expressed some unease with cloning and embryonic stem cell research, and he certainly understands and respects pro-lifers' place in the Republican coalition. He's also usually a clear thinker; he should see the consistency of Brownback's position. Even hard-core pro-aborts like Michael Kinsely get this, while disagreeing vehemently with the overall pro-life position.

If Frum is looking to be revolted, how about considering Giuliani's blatantly political switch from pro-life to pro-abortion when he first ran for mayor of New York in 1994?