What kind of virtue does it take to deny desperately needed health care funds to poor women in countries that try to save women’s lives through family planning?

“78,000 women die every year from unsafe abortion, a statistic that could be virtually eliminated by the provision of appropriate health information and services and law reform efforts.”

Such efforts, of course, are denied by the Bush Global Gag Rule. But it sure sounds virtuous.

What kind of virtue does it take to force a young woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, or to turn a blind eye to the desperate ones who turn to the coat-hanger? Choosing blastocysts over our daughters may not be pretty - but it sounds good in the abstract.

What kind of virtue does it take to stand in the way of research into life-saving therapies, because they make use of stem cells from embryos that will be discarded anyway? It took the agony of Alzheimer’s for Nancy Reagan to see past this one, even though it sounded good for a while.

What kind of virtue does it take to turn the private act of worship into a tyranny of the majority, turning religious minorities into second class citizens? What kind of virtue does it take to deny people the right to marry the person they love, and to share that love with children who need it? Better to have no parents at all? Oh, but it paints such a nice “family-friendly” picture.

In George Will's world, virtue is not defined by actual outcomes: the mitigation of pain, the celebration of life, or the spread of joy. Instead, it is defined as an idealized version of reality, cozily enjoyed by those who don’t have to suffer its consequences.

I hope some progressive candidates choose to challenge this warped definition of virtue.