My left-leaning Catholic friends apparently need to be reminded that Senator Obama, for all of his pretty words, is a radical proabort.
If you honestly think that you can vote in good conscience for a man who is arguably more proabortion than NARAL, then you’re deluding yourself, and playing with fire in the process.
Seriously, what is about the Church’s position on abortion that you folks fail to understand?
This may not be any consolation, but ‘proaborts’ will be running this country in a few months and by the time they are done, there won’t be a “moral majority” hanging around to extol the virtues of St. Reagan the Pro-lifer.
And that would be a good thing to you?
DemocRATS have Obama. We got our Southern Strategy.
Guaranteed to work every time.
You must be with Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Alex
Let me remind you about Church teaching — if you vote for someone who is pro-abortion BECAUSE they are pro-abortion, then you are guilty for voting for abortion with all the consequences of such a vote. But people can vote for someone DESPITE their abortion views without it being seen as supporting abortion. The problem with many people is they continue to ignore this important distinction. Once it is recognized then the politician has to do more than wave the “I am against abortion” carrot (whether or not he actually is; Bush, for example, wasn’t — as can be seen in his support for abortion on demand for babies conceived by rape or incest; anyone who is against abortion because they believe all life is sacred and that life starts at conception could NOT accept such a position; politicians who are not true believers, however… can… and it shows up in their other policies, such as treatment of life outside the womb perhaps?)
And allow me to remind you that “proportionate reasons” don’t mean whatever you wish for them to mean. Such reasons do not exist with respect to Senator Obama’s candidacy, unless the GOP is foolish enough to nominate Rudy Giuliani, which is not going to happen.
And since you’ve decided to air your silly “President Bush isn’t prolife” meme in the open, let me just say that calling anyone who approves of the “three exceptions” as proabortion is cutting off one’s nose to spite the face.
Calling a person who supports banning 99.5% of all abortions “proabortion” is beyond ridiculous.
Alex
That’s right, “proportionate reasons” doesn’t mean whatever *I* want them to mean. They mean what the Republican lobby tells me they mean, right?
That’s right, Kos. I am so glad that you’ve got the DNC talking points down.
Alex
If I cut back from killing 100 people a day to 1 person a day, I would still be a murderer, even if I cut back 99% of my murdering activity. Supporting 1 or 100 murders is still supporting murder, no matter what % it is.
That is one of the big problems with so many so-called pro-lifers. They don’t believe life is sacred, only numbers.
alexham, any potential Obama candidacy will, of necessity, include the input of other Democrats. We’ve seen time and time again that positions taken in the past (such as Al Gore’s and Dennis Kucinich’s pro-life views) are changed when competing in primaries, and changed again in the general election. That’s not to say Obama’s not off-base on abortion, but it’s not reason enough to discount his candidacy, unless he were gaining support because of his record and personal views on abortion.
For most of the American public, abortion “rights” are a settled issue. Democrats have picked other reasons to support Obama. (All of the candidates, including, unfortunately, Kucinich, are singing the same tune.)
Your assessment is premature at this point. If your intent is to throw up blockades for Obama support, then that, my friend, is a political tactic, and one we’re all well within the realm of prudential judgment to reject.
Alexham, you watched that Kennedy Obama rally a couple hours ago didn’t you? Then you took a big swig of Prilosec and headed for the keyboard to remind everyone the guy’s a !!!PROABORT!!! just in case anyone was getting carried away with all that Yes We Can stuff. Geez, man, calm down. Think: Southern Strategy.
Unlike President Bush, I oppose abortion in all instances. But I am smart enough to recognize an ally when I see one. You apparently are willing to slander him for the sake of giving yourself an excuse to vote for a party that is wholly owned by Murder, Inc. If that’s your bag. then have it. But you’re not fooling anyone who isn’t already on board with or indifferent to the proabortion agenda.
Bottom line: Every successful civil-rights movement has people in it that support most but not of all its goals. I am o.k. with that. The goal is to get them to come with us as far as they can, and then encourage them to go further as we go along.
Think of it this way: Would you call a Catholic who accepts 99.5% of the Church’s teachings anti-Catholic or a protestant? I suspect not.
Todd-
Fwiw, I would much rather see Obama get the nomination over HRC, even though I think HRC would be easier to beat.
This isn’t about politics for me. It’s about Catholics disregarding the Church’s teaching on abortion.
Alex
If the person who accepts most teachings but not all and then makes it a public record they do not support all the teachings and argues against the Church’s dogmatic definitions as an issue of “pragmatic reflection” for the sake of “ecumenism,” and then they have been corrected by the Church and still unwilling to follow Church dogmatics, yes, I would call them anti-Catholic. For they would be a heretic.
alexham,
One cannot conflate pro-choice and pro-abortion. They are not the same. Most who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion. Some are; most aren’t.
The pro-choice concern is primarily with the intrusion of the Federal government into the lives of individuals. It’s about personal freedom. This is a reasonable concern.
Gerald-
I think you need to direct your argument to Henry, who thinks that a person who opposes abortion 99.5% of the time is proabortion.
And “personal freedom” also has to apply to the unborn child. No one has the freedom to murder another individual, inside or outside the womb. Nor is there is nothing wrong with the federal government “intruding” into the life of a woman who intends to kill her unborn child. So no, it is not a reasonable concern from the standpoint of the mother.
Alex
If a person supports abortion at any stage for any reason they are pro-abortion. Just like a person who supports murder for some specific reasons were to tell people, “I say it’s ok to go out and kill .5% of the population based upon IQ scores,” would still be supporting murder.
Excusing abortion by appealing to freedom is like excusing condom use by appealing to the fear of venereal disease. It’s a non-starter.
Alexham– what is it about the USCCB document that you fail to understand? That is what must ultimately form consciences in the voting booth, not the partisan hackery of Jimmy Akin, Deal Hudson, or Austin Ruse.
Keep at it, Henry. I am sure that Catholics for a Free Choice will be in touch with a job offer in the near future.
“One cannot conflate pro-choice and pro-abortion. They are not the same.”
And what, praytell, is the practical difference – in terms of voting records, and in terms of the effect on the unborn – between a politician like Obama who is “personally opposed, but pro-choice” and a hypothetical “pro-abortion” politician?
The answer is NONE.
“The pro-choice concern is primarily with the intrusion of the Federal government into the lives of individuals. It’s about personal freedom. This is a reasonable concern.”
I can only imagine what the reaction here would be if someone on the right tried to use federalism and/or libertarian type arguments to justify an act (or advocate on behalf of a politician promoting that act) that is clearly counter to the Church’s teachings.
I believe slavery was justified in just such a way.
The unvarnished truth is this: No matter who is elected, no matter who is selected for the Supreme Court, abortions will still continue to be obtained by American women in huge numbers. Even if it was outlawed tomorrow, women desiring abortions would just buy a bus or plane ticket to Canada, and get their abortions there; poorer women would obtain illegal abortions here in the States, either through “back alley” means, or (more likely) through abortions provided by Planned Parenthood on an “underground” basis.
Abortion has been commonplace for over 30 years; there is not a way to turn back the clock, and make abortion suddenly not commonplace; outlawing abortion won’t restore the (already changing) mores and sensibilities of pre-Roe America.
Alexham, using the abortion issue as a bludgeon will not bully me or other liberal Catholics into voting for Republicans. If that is your intent, give it up.
MM-
I am fine the USCCB document so long as it comports with Pope Benedict’s “proportionate reasons” test.
Alex
You are the one who suggested a President who is for abortion is pro-life. They would be interested in your arguments, not mine.
Fine, Matt. Then why don’t we repeal all of the laws on murder, because people are going to kill people regardless of whether we prohibit it, right?
Honest to God, some of you people really need help.
The Church says time and time again that abortion is one of the most important issues we face as a society, and Matt all but brushes this emphasis aside with a swish of the hand, as if it it were just another issue.
Shame on you, Matt. And may God have mercy on your indifferent soul.
Henry-
You are making a fool of yourself. We don’t you stop digging that hole now.
And yeah, I am sure CFAFC would be interested in my arguments. As one might expect, they don’t view President Bush as being proabortion:
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/news/pr/pressrelease2001.asp
Jay,
“And what, praytell, is the practical difference between a politician like Obama who is “personally opposed, but pro-choice” and a hypothetical “pro-abortion” politician?”
All the difference. The decision rests with the women. It becomes an act of individual conscience. And yes, there is a difference between informed and uninformed conscience. And yes, conscience trumps all, whether formed or uninformed.
What don’t you understand about Catholic ethics? Practical reason.
Gerald-
No, you are quite wrong. A Catholic is required to conform his conscience to Church teaching, to the truth. We don’t get to make up our own truth, call it our “conscience,” and get a pass on fundamental Church teaching.
Matt,
That’s like saying MM shouldn’t use the torture issue to get conservative Catholics to vote Democratic.
alexham,
No, my argument is directed to your description of Obama as ProAbort.
That is a deliberate mischaracterization. He is pro-choice. To say otherwise is slander — another one of those grievous sins.
Read more carefully. The question of freedom is not about the freedom to murder. It is about the freedom from government intrusion into the life of the individual.
Alex
Just because I don’t believe Bush when he claims he is pro-life and anti-abortion does not mean I have made a fool of myself. It means I’ve actually reasoned it out.
It’s quite simple.
Abortion: it’s wrong. It is an intrinsic evil.
Supporting abortion in any situation is supporting an intrinsic evil.
Supporting abortion makes one not pro-life.
Supporting abortion in the case of rape or incest is by definition supporting abortion.
Bush supports abortion in the case of rape or incest.
Bush therefore supports abortion.
Bush supports an intrinsic evil.
Bush is not pro-life.
Those who say you can’t vote for those who support abortion cannot support Bush unless they are hypocrites. Or if they say “there are pragmatic reasons why it is ok to support some people who are pro-abortion,” then they open up the possibility for other pro-abortion candidates to be supported with like reasons. Or you can follow Gerald who points out a distinction between pro-choice and pro-abortion, one which is valid. But it still falls down to the fact that Bush allows for abortion in some circumstances.
But I am not the one who says you can support Bush. I didn’t support him. He is not pro-life. Nor is he anti-abortion. End of statements.
Nice of you to edit my comment to change the meaning and enable yourself to call into question my reasoning and my understanding of Catholic ethics.
What I asked what was the practical difference in terms of voting record and effect on the unborn between a “pro-choice” politician and a “pro-abortion” politician.
Perhaps you’d like to answer the question you were asked, rather than the one you wished you were asked.
And we all know that, while some here think that Republicans have been using the pro-life movement, the real story is that Democrats have been using blacks and other minorities for their ends. Even Al Sharpton is tired of it:
ABC News’ Rick Klein Reports: Rev. Al Sharpton on Monday weighed in on the raging debate inside the Democratic Party over former President Bill Clinton’s advocacy on behalf of his wife’s campaign, with two choice words for the former president: “Shut up.”
On ABC’s “The View,” Sharpton said voters are hearing “race charges, race-tinged rhetoric” in the Democratic primary campaign, and called on the former president to cease.
“I think it’s time for him to just be quiet,” said Sharpton, who was a Democratic presidential candidate in 2004. “I think it’s time for him to stop. As one of the most outspoken people in America, there’s a time to shut up, and I think that time has come.”
Sharpton didn’t say which comments in particular bothered him. But many Democrats were particularly upset that the former president made an explicit comparison of Obama’s campaign to Jesse Jackson’s victories in South Carolina in 1984 and 1988, in an apparent attempt to explain why his wife didn’t win the South Carolina primary on Saturday.
For his part, Jackson told The New York Times that he wasn’t bothered by the comparison. Still, he told the newspaper that he had spoken to both Obama and President Clinton over the weekend, and told both to “take it to a higher ground.”
Obama is pro-abortion, not that there is really an ethical distinction to be made here.
Alex – sorry, but you’re spouting presumptuous nonsense. I am in need of exactly as much mercy as you are, no more no less.
alexham,
You are wrong. We are required to form our conscience on the basis of Church teaching. But, Catholics have freedom to exercise their conscience nonetheless.
You are giving primacy to the will. Catholic ethics asserts the primacy of the intellect. It’s about grasping truth and infusing that truth into one’s being. Conscience evolves over time.
Intrinsic evils by their very nature are accessible to the intellect, hence they can never be conscientially chosen.
Henry,
Bush is not fully anti-abortion. Agreed.
However, since he is much, much more anti-abortion than Sen. Kerry or V.P. Gore was, I think that someone who is fully entitled to say that they voted for him for anti-abortion reasons.
If, we had a situation where all abortions at all times were illegal, than clearly voting for someone who favored the “incest exception” would be pro-abortion.
I don’t have a problem with the document the bishops put out at all, but unless you go into reading it with the assumption that Democratic policies will do absolute wonders for the poor and suffering in this country (which certainly wasn’t the case with the last couple Democratic presidents) then one still isn’t going to ge a “Vote Democrat” result out of that calculus.
Jay,
Your question is nonsensical as expressed.
What’s the practical difference between being pro-American and pro-slaughter of innocents in Iraq? As in your scenario, there’s a huge difference.
Matt-
The difference between you and I is that I know exactly what my sins are. You apparently are all too willing to embrace or act indifferently to the practice of abortion, which is intrinsically evil. For that, you should be ashamed of yourself.
You fight the good fight, regardless of whether or not the issue of abortion is a winner politically. God is glorified when we as Catholics stand up for the unborn. And this is so whether or not we actually prevail in the political arena.
Even Kennedy is tired of Democratic abuse of race:
“Barack Obama paraded a trio of Kennedy clan endorsements, evidence that large sections of the Democratic establishment are now severing ties with the dominant force in the party for 16 years — Hillary and Bill Clinton.
The backing from Edward Kennedy, the veteran Massachusetts senator, is a huge prize for Mr Obama, providing him with momentum ahead of next week’s Super Tuesday elections.
At a rally at the American University in Washington, Mr Kennedy made a series of thinly veiled references to the clashes with the Clintons over recent weeks. He said that Mr Obama would represent a break with “cynical” tactics of “demonising” opponents.
“With Barack Obama we can turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion,” he said, “we can close the book on the old politics of race against race.”
Mr Kennedy is understood to have been repulsed by Mr Clinton’s alleged use of racial politics in the past fortnight. In one recent phonecall, when the former president pleaded with the veteran Massachusetts senator to stay neutral in the race, Mr Kennedy “ripped into him”, according to a source close to him.
He is also said to regard a remark by Mrs Clinton that appeared to give President Johnson — disliked by the Kennedys — the greatest credit for civil rights legislation, as a “direct repudiation of the work of his family”.
The Democratic leadership is said to have become increasingly concerned about Mr Clinton’s behaviour, while many senior figures on Capitol Hill have privately made plain they have little affection for his wife.
In committee meetings, Mrs Clinton has often puts noses out of joint by overriding seniority rules and asking if she can speak first because she has another engagement. “Senators are busy people, they all have something else to do,” said one longtime adviser. “A lot of them have worked with Hillary and her husband for a long time and it is telling they don’t like her. There is a sense of entitlement.” Her campaign, usually so meticulous and methodical, has been slow to work for endorsements from Capitol Hill and elsewhere. For instance, she lost Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to Mr Obama after failing to keep four scheduled meetings.
Phillip, I think you are in the wrong thread. Either that, or you’re spamming.
You are in no position to judge the state of my soul, Alex. Are you my spiritual director? Do you hear my confessions?
Nice try, but again: I will not be bullied by you or any other right-wing blowhard.
Phillip,
Your spot on! This has been going on for quite some time. Both parties are guilty. The object is to win. But is that is the object, no one wins.
How can democracy survive without logical discourse? It can’t. Deception is rampant.
alexham,
“The difference between you and I is that I know exactly what my sins are.”
Wow! Be careful. The greatest sin of all is pride.
Matt-
I judge you by your words, which speak volumes.
That you feel bullied by the Church’s position on abortion tells me all I need to know about you.
Gerald-
I can asuure you that I take no pride in my many sins.
Alexham– Pope Benedict does not have a “proportional reasons” test. In a private letter, he (in an off-the-cuff manner) merely restated traditional teaching as it pertains to the distinction between formal and remote cooperation in evil. Many of us have been using this very reasoning for years now against the erroneous theology of Catholic Answers and fellow travelers. Any anyway, you need to read the USCCB document in its entirety unless you– like Austin Ruse– think it is safe to dismiss it as the handiwork of lay lefties (the fact that the bishop’s conference approved it seems to be irrelevant).
alexham,
I’m sorry. I wasn’t being clear.
I was speaking about the pride of claiming to KNOW all your sins.
I don’t “feel bullied by the Church’s teachings” Alex, in fact, I accept them without reservation.
No, Alex,I won’t accept bullying from YOU.
God is not a Republican.
32. Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute, which would then be the source of values. This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil. To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and “being at peace with oneself”, so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment.
As is immediately evident, the crisis of truth is not unconnected with this development. Once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an act of a person’s intelligence, the function of which is to apply the universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now. Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others. Taken to its extreme consequences, this individualism leads to a denial of the very idea of human nature.
These different notions are at the origin of currents of thought which posit a radical opposition between moral law and conscience, and between nature and freedom.
Veritas Splendor.
“Your question is nonsensical as expressed.”
No, your justification for supporting a politician whose voting record would be exactly the same whether he calls himself “pro-choice” or “pro-abortion” is what is nonsensical.
Whatever you want to call him, Obama has expressed support for legalized abortion as a positive good – as something to be protected (and indeed expanded if he is allowed to push for public funding of abortion and to overturn the Mexico City Policy).
Again, it all comes down to justifying your political preferences. Let’s put aside all the high-minded notions of a consistent application of the Church’s social teachings. Let’s stop pretending to be engaged in some sort of intellectual application of practical Catholic ethics. In the end, it’s just about political preferences.
Gerald-
Fair enough. Allow me to rephrase: When I knowingly sin, I recognize it as such.
Matt-
You need help, bro.
MM,
“Any anyway, you need to read the USCCB document in its entirety unless you– like Austin Ruse– think it is safe to dismiss it as the handiwork of lay lefties (the fact that the bishop’s conference approved it seems to be irrelevant).”
I can assure you that most social conservatives — and I know many you have mentioned on your posts — have complete disregard for the USCCB in most matters. Like you say, they consider the staff at USCCB to be Lefties!
Many of these people were Evangelical before they became Catholic. They have not developed inwardly the intellectual and moral dispositions that would come to a Catholic over the course of a life. This presents a challenge for them. They think more in Protestant terms and lack the rational foundation and logical skills for argument. This is not intended to diminish anyone’s faith, but it does underscore a problem at the logical level.
Matt-
You need help, bro.
Yes, Alex. As do you, and everyone else who does not yet have the Beatific Vision
alexham,
“When I knowingly sin, I recognize it as such.”
But that is the case with everyone. This goes back to the primacy of conscience. Individual conscience can evolve and deepen. So can a nation’s conscience. Or it can regress, as the case may be. We are all on a JOURNEY. Let’s help one another. It’s not easy for anyone.
There is too much emphasis upon FAITH, without HOPE and CHARITY.
Faith without charity is narcissistic.
Gerald-
Yes, we converts have not been around long enough to understand how to properly mischaracterize Church teaching so as to ignore it to the benefit of the Democratic Party.
Perhaps tighter restrictions are in order, eh?
Let me ask you this Gerald: Do you see anything problematic about Matt’s statement re: abortion?
Jay,
“Whatever you want to call him, Obama has expressed support for legalized abortion as a positive good”
No, he has never stated that at all. He is for the choice of the mother.
“Again, it all comes down to justifying your political preferences. Let’s put aside all the high-minded notions of a consistent application of the Church’s social teachings. Let’s stop pretending to be engaged in some sort of intellectual application of practical Catholic ethics. In the end, it’s just about political preferences.”
It’s clear from your statement above that you’ve missed the entirety of what I’ve been saying. I thought so but wasn’t sure until these sentences popped up. Without understanding, there is no dialogue.
MM,
Reading and submitting to Faithful Citizenship does not necessary equal voting Democratic, yet you have a tendency to tell people to go read it in a manner that suggests you imagine that it does.
Gerald,
I have the feeling that many of those converts (I’m a cradle Catholic myself) would find your characterization rather patronizing. On the flip side, I would observe that coming from the union of two large, ethnically Catholic families (one Irish, one Mexican) the phenominon that I have generally observed is that roughly have the extended family has remained passionately (indeed, rather tribally) Democratid in its political affiliation but has stopped attending mass, while the other half has switched to being Republican or independant, and has continued to receive the sacraments. It’s a tendency I’ve observed in many families, and I think it underlines of shifting political landscape of the last 50 years for many Catholics.
“It’s clear from your statement above that you’ve missed the entirety of what I’ve been saying. I thought so but wasn’t sure until these sentences popped up. Without understanding, there is no dialogue.”
No. I know where you’re coming from. There’s no misunderstanding. I just call “B.S.”
Gerald-
This “choice of the mother” and “individual freedom” rhetoric that you’re using borders on being scandalously supportive of abortion. I would step away from the keyboard, were I you.
The Catholic Church does not permit Catholics to favor the very choice you seem to advocate.
alexham,
Are you referring to this statement of Matt’s::
“The unvarnished truth is this: No matter who is elected, no matter who is selected for the Supreme Court, abortions will still continue to be obtained by American women in huge numbers. Even if it was outlawed tomorrow, women desiring abortions would just buy a bus or plane ticket to Canada, and get their abortions there; poorer women would obtain illegal abortions here in the States, either through “back alley” means, or (more likely) through abortions provided by Planned Parenthood on an “underground” basis.
“Abortion has been commonplace for over 30 years; there is not a way to turn back the clock, and make abortion suddenly not commonplace; outlawing abortion won’t restore the (already changing) mores and sensibilities of pre-Roe America.”
At the practical level, I’m afraid I have to agree with Matt’s judgment. I don’t like the predicament in which we find ourselves. Nor does he, I’m sure. But there has been a radical cultural transformation in America that reaches back over a half century. We, today, are the beneficiary of that change, like it or not. Some good has occurred; much bad.
It is for this reason that I have been suggesting here and on other posts yesterday and today that we must begin to think anew and act anew. The tired strategies have not worked in nearly forty years of effort. I don’t believe they can work. Politicians use committed people for their own ends, particularly on these social questions. This constitutes an ugly scene.
But this failure should not be seen as defeat. What it signals is a need to start over and being new ways of achieving these ends. It will be difficult and involve an multi-generational effort. But, as you well know, it is well worth it.
As you know, the way we treat the unborn is a measure of our society. But to uplift society we have to do more than rigorously patrol behavior. That has no chance of success. And yet, that is what we have been doing. This course of action only marginalizes the importance of the issue. And it breeds despair and anger. Nothing is more detrimental to success, especially when we have to win over “hearts and minds” to succeed.
I believe Alexham is referring to this statement:
That is a deliberate mischaracterization. He is pro-choice. To say otherwise is slander — another one of those grievous sins.
Read more carefully. The question of freedom is not about the freedom to murder. It is about the freedom from government intrusion into the life of the individual.
I could have cited another post of yours as well.
Friends . . . can we dial this down a bit?
I assume we all agree that the USCCB document, which MM has mentioned, here and elsewhere, teaches (correctly) that (a) there will be times when a faithful Catholic can, in good faith, conclude that, all things considered, the exercise of faithful citizenship involves voting for a particular candidate in spite of his pro-abortion-rights views; (b) a faithful Catholic could *not* support a candidate *because of* her pro-abortion-rights views; and (c) only “truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil,” could support a faithful Catholic’s decision to support a candidate with pro-abortion-rights views. (MM, I’m sure, would say that we can and should substitute “pro-torture-views” for “pro-abortion-rights” views.)
And, do we also agree that Sen. Obama’s vote, in Illinois, against that state’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act represents quite a glaring contradiction with his sunny and — I admit — sometimes inspiring campaign?
I’m for McCain. Some here are for Huckabee, others (I assume) are for Romney, Obama, Edwards, etc. Fine. I don’t usually go in for phony irenicism, but we all love the babies (don’t we?), and we all agree that none of these candidates is ideal.
I realize that I’m new to the blog, and I hope this is not out-of-line: Let’s not swoon over Obama (or Huckabee, or McCain, or . . . ), and become *just* a contentious election-time blog. Whatever Obama is, it is hard to see how he is clearly *less* objectionable to faithful Catholics than the others.
Alexham,
Not really. Just pointing out that for the past week or so we have been hearing about how Repubs are not really pro-life and using them movement ad nauseum. Just like to point out the reality of the way the Democratic party is using others. Given how big a topic race-baiting by the Clintons has been in the MSM over the past week (even the NYTimes told the Clintons to tone it down) it might have been mentioned here. Just pointing out a beam in the eye.
Hmmm. From the USCCB’s Faithful Citizenship, page 10:
22. There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.
Emphasis added.
I mean, imagine how Vox Nova would have gone ballistic if a Republican had said Obama won S.C. because of blacks.
Phillip-
Gotcha.
Gerald: Very good point about evangelical converts briging their protestant ways of thinking with them. After all, do you see these kinds of debates in Europe, where abortion is also widely available? No, you do not (and I’m talking about the tone and tenor of arguments as opposed to the actual Church teachings on abortion).
Darwin: of course it does not say “vote Democratic”. Neither does it say “vote Republican”. I don’t see anybody arguing that Catholics should only do the former. I see lots arguing that they should do the latter. That is the problem.
” A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.”
That’s of course the same legal system that Bush’s nominees for the Supreme Court said they agreed with.
Bush also seems to think the system is valid.
Most voters seem to.
I do not.
Thank you for the cool piece of condescension MM. How arguing that Catholics aren’t as zealous in their opposition to abortion actually benefits the discussion or is actually viewed as positive by the Vatican would be an interesting bit of sophistry that I’m sure you’d be more than willing to concoct.
Darwin Catholic,
Yes, I admit my comment might be taken as patronizing. It wasn’t intended that way. But it is important to recognize its truth, especially since the Catholic tradition is imbued, not merely with doctrine and teaching, but with a rich and very difficult intellectual tradition that is its interpretive force.
The Catholic universities have failed over the last thirty years. They have abolished systematic philosophy, replacing it with the history of philosophy, and at Georgetown they have even removed Shakespeare from the requirements for English majors. Latin and Greek are gone, and the humanizing forces they present. All in all, it is becoming a Wasteland. This is another reason why we have to begin anew.
Your observations about mass attendance are interesting. Are those that attend mass half of both Mexicans and Irish? It is interesting. Catholics have always been in the forefront of social justice in America. The New Deal, and even before, up to the present day. I myself am Irish and Norwegian (my humor is Norwegian). The Irish part is still faithful whereas the rest are not. Catholics now seem fragmented and united by little. The focus on issues helps little. What is needed is a deeper understanding and a language that can be sent into battle. But alas, our need for deeper understanding reflects that we have moved away from our intellectual foundations. Few even know the meaning of practical reason.
Yet, if we are to address behavioral problems in America — we need the assistance of that intellectual tradition. We need to create a language that can articulate the truths of Faith, Hope, and Charity without having to resort to Scripture or Church teaching. Secular culture can be enriched, as Jacques Maritain believed. It is up to us to do the enriching. In that way we will move towards the goals we all seek, including the sanctity of life, personal dignity, individual freedom, and human solidarity. LIke most things evolutionary, significant change must be organic.
We are in the midst of a spiritual crisis in America. It’s much deeper than Church attendance. It goes to the very depth of the human person. Its a crisis of relationships. I speak of the “unmet need to belong.” This is an existential need, not a psychological or sociological need. We are crying out to belong in a world where the individual is atomistic in nature. The Trinitarian nature of man cannot find expression in our society because our foundations are predicated on the autonomous individual — Hobbes and Locke.
Spiritual alienation runs through American society. Alienated individuals will do anything to alleviate the “unmet need to belong.” They will share heroin needles, they will murder another, they will take drugs, join gangs, and indulge in a life of power and wealth. They will do anything. Abortion is part of this dynamic It is a profoundly troubling time. I wish there were a quick fix. But there isn’t.
MM,
The United States is the only Protestant nation ever founded from scratch. Americans are all Protestant, through and through. Some of us go to the Catholic Church. Fewer yet have been trained philosophically. There will be even fewer trained tomorrow since Catholic universities have given up on the task.
The intellectual tradition is not with us. Such is America’s Achilles Heel. Think about the Pope’s Regenburg Speech in that light.
Darwin Catholic,
“A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.”
St. Thomas would agree. But I don’t believe that is the case in America, given the state of jurisprudence which the Supreme Court now relies upon.
Jay,
“No. I know where you’re coming from. There’s no misunderstanding. I just call “B.S.””
You know much less than you think. But that’s fine. Keep it at that.
We’ll just disagree. No hard feelings here.
alexham,
“Yes, we converts have not been around long enough to understand how to properly mischaracterize Church teaching so as to ignore it to the benefit of the Democratic Party.
Perhaps tighter restrictions are in order, eh?”
Your last sentence is an expression of my point.
This is my opinion:
Voting for a Republican may result in anti-abortion Justices being appointed to the Supreme Court, but overturning Roe v. Wade will not only not end abortion in the country, but it could result in a sort of “underground railroad” for NARAL and its allies to shuttle women seeking abortions out of states with criminalized abortion practices to states which maintain legalized abortion-on-demand. This will make it more difficult for the pro-life activists to reach out to these women.
Additionally, I believe that voting for a Republican may result in economic conditions among our nation’s poor which may actually increase the likelihood that poor women will seek out abortions for difficult pregnancies, whether abortion is legal or not.
Voting for the likes of Senator Obama may maintain the status quo on abortion legality for now, but will create an economic situation for the nation’s poor that may allow poor women to make better choices about keeping a difficult pregnancy, while Democratic Party pro-life activists continue to lobby the party to accept a greater voice for pro-life candidates and positions in the party.
In short, I believe that voting for a Republican will actually, if counter-intuitively, result in a greater likelihood that abortion will continue in the country.
alexham,
“This “choice of the mother” and “individual freedom” rhetoric that you’re using borders on being scandalously supportive of abortion. I would step away from the keyboard, were I you.
The Catholic Church does not permit Catholics to favor the very choice you seem to advocate.”
They are not favoring the choice some women might make regarding abortion, but they saying it is their place to choose, whether they choose rightly or wrongly.
There is a real distinction here. “Real distinction” is a logical distinction
Jason makes a good point.
Things are more difficult than they appear.
When considering legislators/executives and their relationship to the issue of abortion, let’s minimize things like executive orders dealing with military availability, taxpayer subsidy, parental notification, Roe v. Wade, bully pulpit rhetoric, trimester restrictions, and so on – you know, those things that directly and immediately affect the unborn – to focus on abstract, ideological notions of “wealth transfer”, “economics” ect. ???
Nonsense…
That is pure sophistry. My goodness. You give Jesuitical a bad name.
All laws are an attempt to restrict the choices that people might make. Laws against theft infringe on people’s freedom to steal. Laws against murder infringe on people’s freedom to end the lives of others.
Why the special case here?
And from a party which is not exactly known for it’s non-interventionalist tendencies…
And from a party which is not exactly known for it’s non-interventionist tendencies…
How could that be used to change the hearts and minds of pro-choice Democrats, DarwinCatholic? See how my question doesn’t fit anywhere in a culture-war frame?
Darwin Catholic,
“All laws are an attempt to restrict the choices that people might make. Laws against theft infringe on people’s freedom to steal. Laws against murder infringe on people’s freedom to end the lives of others.
“Why the special case here?”
Ask yourself that question. Why have laws not been passed to declare abortion murder? Could it have something to do with practical reason?
“Ask yourself that question. Why have laws not been passed to declare abortion murder? Could it have something to do with practical reason?”
Actually, I think it has something to do with Roe v. Wade.
The mental gymnastics that some Catholics will put themselves through in order to vote with a clear conscience for a total pro-abort such as Senator Obama! Somehow I doubt if Vox Nova will become the home of a StopBarack Movement by liberal Catholics to match the StopRudy movement of conservative Catholics. Face it, for a lot of Catholics on the Left, stopping abortion is simply not a high priority item.
Gerald,
I had a thought relating to your reflection that we as Catholics have become alienated from our intellectual roots. While I am thankful for the common ground that Evangelical Protestants share with Catholics in their opposition to abortion, I cannot help but take note of the influence of theory, doctrine, and hermeneutics. From my experience, many Evangelicals base their opposition on a deeply flawed fundamentalism, rejecting the inherent authority of reason and relying on Revelation as the sole source of truth. When it comes to abortion, the only weapons they bring to the battle for hearts and minds is a Scriptural witness that carries no weight with non-believers. Whereas Catholics have the weapons of natural law and natural reason, it seems that the Evangelicals, however adamant, simply lack the resources to truly convince others of the truth of the pro-life stance. Their discourse then boils down to a shouting match, and their campaign one of sheer overpowering with democratic action. While this is essential in the immediate practical realm, I fear that this has the unwanted effect of alienating otherwise reasonable individuals, and only contributes to the mistaken view that the pro-life position is essentially anti-rational. Something tells me for them, there is nothing wrong with it being anti-rational.
Could the flaws inherent in Protestant doctrine actually be hurting the pro-life cause in the long run? For without the spoils of hearts and minds, the victory will never be worth celebrating…
Pax Christi,
Mr. Campbell,
Why is it that you believe the right to life of the child in the womb is less worthy of state protection that the right of the mother to choose kill it?
How is that practical reason?
Donald,
I agree, much to my dismay, that for many Catholics on the left, stopping abortion is not a high priority issue. Many in my own family are so influenced by long time support of Democrats socially and living under bad Republican policy that they are willing to hide behind some of the flimsiest walls of denial. Other issues have just been so prominent to them, they simply couldn’t stand to let the Republicans get away with it. What saddens me most is not their (rather uninformed) prudential judgments, but their failure to even engage the issue as if it were complex enough to warrant serious thought.
Though I honestly believe that Catholics on the Right have to admit that the war against abortion has many fronts, and the only way to seriously engage it is with a holistic opposition, striking at the roots and causes. This means that conservatives need to admit that there is a social and economic dimension to the abortion rates, and perhaps radically different policies in these areas are needed in the name of the Culture of Life. In other words, it goes beyond Roe and the law, and being truly devoted to the cause may involve policy that hardcore conservatives would cringe at: pulling one up by his own bootstraps is not going to lower the abortion rate. The temptation on the Right is to only engage abortion in areas where it fits with their traditional platform. I’m not endorsing some kind of radical socialism, or saying that overturning Roe is not crucial. But honesty and humility are needed.
For those on the Left who do claim that proportionate reasons do exist to vote Democrat in spite of pro-abortion stance: I challenge you to realize what a heavy burden that is. And I challenge you further to list on this thread in detail your reasoning. I think that would help this debate to move along more productively.
Pax Christi,
I don’t think that’s what Gerald is saying, Ben.
X-Cathedra, I appreciate your comments. I am always open to argument as to how to reduce abortion. Personally, the most effective work I have performed in this area is helping pregnant women in crisis pregnancies, from my days as the only male volunteer for Birthright at the University of Illinois, to my current role as Chairman of the Board of the crisis pregnany centers in my county. I believe that many factors contribute to the abortion tragedy: social, economic, and, perhaps most important, spiritual. Reasonable people can debate what should be done in all these areas, and I am open to arguments and new ideas. While doing all of this however, I think it is also keenly important to elect candidates who will work to end the legal protection that abortion completely enjoys. I think you and I are on the same page.
To advocate for the choice for abortion is to advocate for abortion.
Mr. Talbot,
Thank you for correcting my misapprhension. I’m glad to hear that Mr. Campbell believes that the state should protect unborn children from being aborted by thier mothers. I must have misunderstood; he agress with the USCCB on this issue then that the US has a fundamentally flawed legal system because it violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice. .
Gerald,
America is not a protestant nation in her institutions.
There is much that political philosophy has to say about this subject; I cannot sufficiently summarize here. But I’ll give it a go anyways.
There was a great article on the Claremont Review of Books’ blog recently:
http://www.claremont.org/blogs/blogid.6994/blog_detail.asp
The author addresses the claim that the United States is founded as a Christian nation and argues that fundamentally the principles that underlie the constitution of the United States are rooted in the natural law.
If that author is correct in his argument ( I think he is) , the Founding is more Catholic than it is Protestant. (I know that claim won’t go over well here)
America is not a protestant nation in her institutions.
In Protestant form, yes, America is.
Mr. Campbell believes that the state should protect unborn children from being aborted by thier mothers. I must have misunderstood; he agress with the USCCB on this issue then that the US has a fundamentally flawed legal system because it violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice…
Correct, Ben. I don’t think Gerald would disagree with any of those things.
Gerald,
I think some people (myself included) are confused as to your stance on the abortion issue. First of all, regarding conscience: certianly a person must follow their conscience (even if it is ill-formed), but that doesn’t mean that their choice ought to be protected by law. An ill formed conscience may judge that it is right to kill an innocent person. Such a person, even though following their ill-formed conscience, ought to be punished. The law should both reflect the moral order and further the common good. It should not, however, protect choices which gravely injure that common good.
Moreover, I would like to address some assumptions that seem to be floating around.
1)Republicans have done nothing to further the pro-life movement(specifically, with regard to abortion): This is is scandalously untrue. One need not be a zealous republican to see that the party has made gains in working and legislatating for the unborn on the local, national, and international level. They haven’t been perfect, but to expect all or nothing is neither fair nor realistic. Moreover, it seems probable that a strongly pro-choice president would try to undo some of these important gains.
2) People are always going to have abortions, therefore it does not matter whether it is legal or not: Not true. As pointed out by Darwin Catholic in his qoutation of Faithful Citizenship above, the mere fact that the law allows millions of innocent lives to be snuffed out is in itself a grave injustice which we must fight without ceasing. This doesn’t mean that we ignore other cultural factors (poverty, broken families, etc). Rather, we fight to make abortion illegal while doing all we can to alleviate these cultural factors. It need not be an either/or. Social conservatives have known this for a long time and they have done much (like start CPC’s) to meet these cultural factors while simutaneusly working to gain legal protection for unborn persons. To throw ones hands in the air and (wrongly) suggest that it is impossible to make abortion illegal is unacceptable.
X-Cathedra,
“Could the flaws inherent in Protestant doctrine actually be hurting the pro-life cause in the long run? For without the spoils of hearts and minds, the victory will never be worth celebrating…”
I believe this to be the case.
It is one thing to force a change in behavior using extrinsic means, including the law. It’s another to inspire change from within. The later alone promises lasting benefit.
Policraticus,
What is the distinction you are making there?
And how so?
Br. Matthew Augustine, OP,
If I’m not mistaken, your comments hinge on passing laws that make abortion illegal.
I don’t believe this is an effective means to bring about the changes you and I both seek. It hasn’t worked in the war on drugs, e.g. All we’ve manage to do in that war is incarcerate an additional 2.2 million people since 1981 and institutionalize a sophisticated drug marketing operation. Like prohibition, this is not sound policy.
I believe the legal prohibition of abortion would create a nightmare of an even greater magnitude. There are too many contradictory values at work in the abortion question for it to go gently into the night.
At bottom, the behavior challenge America faces — homelessness, substance abuse, violence, abortion, gangs, sexual misconduct, the quest for power, wealth, and image — is a spiritual crisis. it must be understood in those terms if effective strategies are to be designed that will reduce the incidence of these problems.
Others will disagree. So be it. But few would doubt the record of success thus far is paltry. And it is not my intent to dissuade others from doing what their doing. I’m simply saying a new approach is need that address the problem at the level of its causal origins.
Furthermore, I’m not criticizing any political party. I am critical, however, of US policy on these matters. Policy has proven to be an ineffective means of bringing about social change.
At the same time, there is much work being done in communities that helps to help those needing assistance. This is important because people helping people is essential work. Quality relations are established that helps to heal an alienated spirit.
But there need to be attention paid to prevention. 98% of US health dollars goes into treatment of disease and injury. Less than 2% goes into prevention.
But there is also the need for Catholics in particular to engage the nation in a philosophical discussion about the fundamental principles of our society. One such principle is the notion of the autonomous individual. This idea lies at the heart of our culture. It is a view that flows out of Hobbes and Locke and results in an atomization of society. It also undermines the very possibility of natural law and the common good.
The promise of a culture of life cannot be realized on that foundation.
The above is an arbitrary sketch that helps get a sense of the root cause of abortion. I believe it is a much deeper problem than most realize. It is a spiritual, intellectual, and ethical challenge.
Some would disagree, however, and judge abortion to be primarily a legal challenge. Well, if that is the case then all they need do is pass a law. But to me that approach is too shallow. It doesn’t address the nature of the problem as it exists in and of itself.
Hopefully this addresses some of your questions.
X-Cathedra’s comments above are those with which I concur. I believe he is on the mark. I have addressed this elsewhere on this blog today and yesterday.
Gerald,
As I said, the law isn’t merely there to coerce behavior but also to protect the common good and reflect the truth of the human person and the moral order. It is worth our blood, sweat and tears to work to ensure that the dignity of unborn life is reflected in law, even if such laws didn’t succeed in preventing women from having abortions (Even though they undoubtedly would prevent some women…)
Think of Jim Crow laws. Such laws ought to be eliminated regardless of whether hearts and minds have been changed. You would agree with that wouldn’t you? Reducing the purpose of law to coercion doesn’t seem to have support in Catholic thought. If it does, this Protestant convert would like to know where. Perhaps I am insufficiently converted… ;)
Gerald,
Your analogy with the war on drugs troubles me. Do you really see the legal prohibition of killing innocent human persons as analogous to the prohibition of drug use?? Do you believe in a right to life for all persons from conception until death? How does one affirm such a right and simultaneously support legalized abortion?
If that author is correct in his argument ( I think he is) , the Founding is more Catholic than it is Protestant. (I know that claim won’t go over well here)
Yeahhh… which fits really well with the reality that people were suspicious of Catholics for most of America’s history, eh?
I believe it’s important to change this society. But I don’t believe the passing of laws is an effective means of bringing about social change. There are more effective ways — some of which I have alluded to elsewhere — that will bring about changes that are more enduring than the mere passage of a law.
Indeed, unless basic change take place, there is no chance of passing a law. Too many contradictory values coalesce around this issue to make that likely. There needs to be a reconciliation of sorts first before such laws are even possible.
To date, the contest has been framed in such a way as to breed resentment and anger. Just read through this thread. There has been little evidence of dialogue, it seems to me. Much shouting and screaming. And out of such exchange will come a law? I don’t think so.
Why not pursue other means that address the nature of the problem and are more promising in the long term? It has been four decades after all. Little progress has been made.
“Yeahhh… which fits really well with the reality that people were suspicious of Catholics for most of America’s history, eh?”
Indeed. And more than suspicious! Just ask any Irish Catholic from Boston.
Now that makes me want to have a drink and run the streets wild.
Michael J. Iafrate,
Are you at the Pontifical Institute at Toronto?
Br. Matthews Augustine, OP
“Do you really see the legal prohibition of killing innocent human persons as analogous to the prohibition of drug use?”
You must be on the West Coast. I’m always surprised that people are up this late.
I believe I mentioned earlier that I was talking about the effectiveness of means. The end is not a question for me.
Some means are proportionate to the end and others are not. I don’t believe you go into a society such as ours and simply pass a law. The effect would be analogous to that which occurred during Prohibition. That’s all I’m saying.
Do you think otherwise?
Indeed. And more than suspicious! Just ask any Irish Catholic from Boston.
Yes. I was being… what’s the word people throw around on this blog so much?….. charitable. :)
Are you at the Pontifical Institute at Toronto?
Nope, they’re medieval studies. But it’s connected somehow with the University of St. Michael’s College, which is my school (http://www.utoronto.ca/stmikes/theology). I’m in systematics, doing more contemporary political & liberationist stuff, ecclesiology, etc.
Gerald,
Yes, I am on the West coast, though it is late here as well.
And yes, I do think otherwise. Again, you are reducing the purpose of the law to changing society or coercing behavior. My point is that such a reduction doesn’t have a foundation in Catholic thought. Seeking the legal protection of human life is an end in itself, even without reference to its effects. Should we have waited for a change of hearts and minds in the South before striking down Jim Crow laws? Your pitting of legal vs. internal societal change is a false dichtonomy. We should be working for both simutaneously.
Moreover, here is what seriously unsettles me about your analogy with Prohibition and the drug war. The latter(drug and alchohol consumption) concerns matters the regulation of which can be the subject of a prudential give and take. The former (killing innocent human persons) cannot be the subject of such prudential reflection. That is why your analogy seriously disturbs me.
In thinking about a possible Obama Presidency, I should like you anti-abortion Vox Nova readers and commentators to consider something that it would seem that almost none of you are presently doing, and which jerk-knee Republican apparatchiks like Donald McClary (who I sometimes think would have the Catholic Church in America become the “Republican Party at Prayer”) must positively DREAD that you might come to realize:
Obama is NOT the kind of “liberal” you’re used to seeing come out of the ranks of Democratic party politicians. He is far more skeptical of “big government” solutions than Mr. McClary and other right-wingers writing here would have you believe.
It’s because he is, first and foremost, a community organizer who believes in local solutions and in SUGGESTING ways that people with problems can begin to tackle them on their own. You needn’t take my word for it. Dick Morris nails it precisely:
Obama has made the Super Tuesday vote more about who we are than who the candidates running for president are.
And Andrew Sullivan (homosexual though he may be, and excoriated for that by most here, he is still a Burkean “conservative”) understands the natural affinity Obama has with a lot of the more creative conservative thinkers:
It’s the community organizer in him. Only now the community he is organizing is an entire country. I do think this is an important aspect to Obama’s liberalism that provides a bridge to conservatism. He is not a traditional top-down big government liberal. He’s a pragmatist who believes in finding ways to empower people to run their own lives. No, he’s no libertarian. But his view of government’s role has absorbed some of the right-wing critiques of the 1970s and 1980s. Hence the lack of mandates in his healthcare proposal and his refusal to engage in racial victimology. This nuance is worth exploring. Unlike Hillary, he doesn’t believe he is going to save anyone. He thinks he has a chance to help some people save themselves.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/dick-morris-ins.html
What does that suggest for the abortion issue that seems to be the non-negotiable for almost everybody writing here?
First of all, you all are right: there will be absolutely no compromise from the Democratic Party on women’s rights, including the right to abort a fetus. You can stand on your head until the cows come home and scream about it, but what is that going to get you, in terms of reversing a policy that you (and I) believe is warping the fabric of public morality?
However, there are very few pro-choice men and women I know who wouldn’t agree that abortion is a tragedy that people should work to make a rare occurrence. I am absolutely convinced that, if “social conservatives” were to approach a President Obama and say, “Look, we want to work with government, to reduce the incidences of abortion, in order to help young women get their lives in order, rather than confront you over Supreme Court nominees,” those “social conservatives” would most definitely be given a favorable reception by an Obama White House. In fact, I believe they’d be given a MORE favorable reception by an Obama White House than by one controlled by most of the present crop of Republican hopefuls (with the honorable exception of Ron Paul). As others here have written, these Republicans are more interested in having Roe v. Wade remain in place, in order that it continue to be used as a campaign issue by their party, whose movers and shakers, at the very top, are not so much “socially conservative” as they are “fiscally conservative,” for the sake of the financially privileged, whose interests they serve far more zealously than they do those of Christians of more humble circumstances.
How Catholics have been treated in America is totally unrelated to the argument I was making and I think you both know that.
I believe Br. Matthew makes a very important point: If we talk out of one side of our mouths about the fundamental dignity of the human person and the necessity of care and fidelity in human relationship, and out of the other side of our mouths we proclaim support for people and policies which put forth abortion as a fundamental human right, we give the lie to any idea that the unborn are worthy of protection and respect. Whatever good an Obama presidency might achieve (and given the stalemate that is likely to remain in place at the legislative level, I think that even liberals would be forced to admit it would be very little) it would achieve nothing at all in the direction of respect for the unborn. Indeed, quite the opposite.
With all due respect, Gerald, (a phrase which almost invariably precedes an attack of some sort) I think you are chasing a something insubstantial and emotional. Perhaps in grad school you felt that the Kennedy administration was some vast moral/philosophical awakening which was cut cruelly short, and perhaps you feel this pleasant tingle upon the mind again, but that is at root something in your head. If Obama wins the presidency, it will be with less than 55% of the vote. He will be reviled by many, ignored by others, used by some, and adored by a few. Humanity will remain a fallen race. We will kill our young and our old, we will starve our poor and oppress others. Countries and cultures do go through good and bad periods, but there will be no change to a heaven on this earth. Among our saints are several kings and queens, and yet even under them their countries did not collectively rise up and become cities on a hill. There’s no way that Obama will achieve what they failed in.
Gerald,
Whle you speak of the need to transcend the coercion of public policy, your man Obama has clearly expressed his support . On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he conveyed his firm intent to oppose any legislative attempt to protect the life of the unborn:
[Barack Obama]: ””Throughout my career, I’ve been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
“When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.”
The “Freedom of Choice Act” (S. 1173) to which he refers is a bill introduced by the Democrats to nullify any state or federal law that would “interfere with” access to abortion.
According to the National Right to Life: The bill flatly invalidates any “statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action” of any federal, state, or local government or governmental official (or any person acting under government authority) that would “deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose” abortion, or that would “discriminate against the exercise of the right . . . in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.”
This no-restriction policy would establish, in Senator Boxer’s words, “the absolute right to choose” prior to fetal “viability.” The no-restriction policy would also apply after “viability” to any abortion sought on grounds of “health.”
Obama speaks of change, hope and unity — but this man whom you praise as “authentic and truthful. He radiates truth and goodness. He possesses charisma and exercises sound judgment” has established himself in firm opposition to the very idea of Pope John Paul II’s “culture of life”.
I am absolutely convinced that, if “social conservatives” were to approach a President Obama and say, “Look, we want to work with government, to reduce the incidences of abortion, in order to help young women get their lives in order, rather than confront you over Supreme Court nominees,” those “social conservatives” would most definitely be given a favorable reception by an Obama White House.
Contrast Andrew Sullivan’s wishful thinking with the actual stated intent and promises of Obama on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade to oppose pro-life efforts at every level.
Digby,
How would this President respond to federal-funding of crisis pregnancy centers?
Does he wish to prohibit or support federal funding and promotion of abortion?
Does he wish to prohibit or support the Mexico City policy or the Hyde Amendment?
How does he feel about existing pro-life legislation?
His desire to work with “social conservatives” has so far amounted to “common-sense solutions like increasing access to affordable birth control to help prevent unintended pregnancies.”
My uncle was a Jesuit for over 60 years. He was no fan of abortion. He also was no fan of politicowannabes who use the issue as a stepping stone to either further their political career(s), who love to stick their noses into other people’s crotches, and/or use the issue to make themselves feel better about themselves. But my uncle greatly admired people who took public service seriously, despite a few shortfalls in designing public policy.
Personally, I am constantly amused by people who focus solely on candidate’s positions with respect to abortion, but who themselves fail to consider the whole of the candidate or to come up with substantive solutions for what is a moral issue to many – Catholics included.
It’s fairly obvious that you are a fan of gw, Alex… yet, I’ve never seen a post in which you tag him for not addressing the most problematic parts of abortion – including the use of abortion as contraception. Why is that? Is that politics of the moment more important than what you claim is the core of your moral fiber?
That the Church should stay out of State?
Obama isn’t pro abortion. He’s pro choice. No one is pro abortion.
saur kraut raises some valid and interesting points.
digbydolben,
The Republicans have not been particularly fiscally conservative as far as I can tell. As for Republicans wanting to keep the status quo with Roe v Wade I suppose one could make the case that Democrats don’t really want to reduce or eradicate poverty or racial tensions. If those two issues were gone what whould they use to acquire power?
“Obama isn’t pro abortion. He’s pro choice. No one is pro abortion.”
Ohhhh man.
digbydolben’s comments are right on the mark.
Christopher,
Your attempts at characterization are shallow. Deeper issues have been expressed throughout this thread and elsewhere that you should have been able to penetrate and dissect, given your educational background. But you insist on reducing them to flights of fancy. So, I can’t comment furthers on your remarks.
What is so hard to understand that pro choice means you can say no to abortion. Since when is being pro choice considered “radical” being that it is the law of the land and the majority of the people do support Roe vs. Wade? Get a clue…
SauerKraut,
I know many Jesuit priests and prominent theologians who are upset with the tone and quality of the pro-life debate. They know it is going nowhere. Yet, it is difficult for them to express themselves because the debate has been carried for the most part by political activists who have left their thinking caps on the hook. Such activists are more concerned about winning than they are about bringing about a reconciliation of conflicting ideas and social dynamics. Currently, these political activists remain in control. But their grip is loosening. Once it is broken, new strides will eventually be made as thinking people explore new ways of helping those who cannot help themselves.
Dan says,
“Obama isn’t pro abortion. He’s pro choice. No one is pro abortion.”
This is correct.
The methodology adopted by the political activists who dominate the pro-life debate depends upon the identification of pro-choice and pro-abortion. If that link is broken, their entire approach collapses.
In short, their position is predicated upon a deliberate distortion.
Darwin Catholic,
Hopes and dreams are not insubstantial. They are the energy that drives history.
Michael J. Iafrate,
You wonder whether anyone has seen Gangs of New York. Or even wondered why Kennedy is so revered in Massachusetts. It’s clearly not because the Puritans were Catholics.
Your choice of studies is interesting. After having spent three and a half years grad study at Saint Louis U. in Medieval philosophy, I decided to move on either to the Pontifical Institute or Georgetown. I chose the later because it had a more contemporary focus, although I still concentrated on Greek and Medieval studies.
Best of luck to you.
Gerald,
But hopes and dreams do tend to be very subjective. While you say you haven’t felt this way since JFK, a great many Americans felt great hope and inspiration to do their best for their country, community and family when listening to Reagan.
Who is right? The intensity of emotion is most certainly not a way to tell.
DarwinCatholic,
Hopes and dreams always have a subjective component. But there is a difference between hopes and dreams, and mere ideology. The deeper the hopes and dreams the more universal and transcendent they are. At the concrete level, a person’s hopes and dreams intersect and are imbued with the universal. This is the stuff that Christopher Dawson speaks about.
Yes, your are right about Reagan. I held a senior post in the Reagan Administration. He had a passionate belief in freedom and dignity. His hopes, dreams, and leadership inspired the actions of people around the world. Reagan and JPII inspired those freedom-loving individuals to unroot Soviet totalitarianism. It’s amazing how hopes and dreams move history.
Has anyone read this account of some “anti-abortion” (cause no one is pro-abortion) pro-choice clergy blessing a PP clinic?
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=657499&category=REGION&newsdate=1/23/2008&TextPage=1
Which begs the question. Is there somewhere in between anti-abortion and pro-abortion? I propose we call it “lukewarm on abortion” or you could just call it pro-choice. Lukewarm? Where have I heard that term used before?
Tim
Stop thinking in dualistic terms.
I’m don’t believe I was Henry. I pointed out that there were 3 views. I was under the impression that dualistic referred to two. I think maybe you should stop thinking in dualistic terms. “Henry’s intrepretation of Catholicism” vs. Gnosticism.
Tim
You obviously think someone is either anti-abortion or pro-abortion, and therefore said “no one is for abortion” means everyone, including pro-choice supporters, are “anti-abortion.” That shows you are thinking only in duality.
“Has anyone read this account of some ‘anti-abortion’ (cause no one is pro-abortion) pro-choice clergy blessing a PP clinic”
See — either for abortion or against it. That’s duality.
Henry,
Don’t tell me what I obviously think. I was referring sarcastically to Dan’s words “No one is pro-abortion” with which Mr. Campbell agreed. If some pro-choice people are not anti-abortion as you imply ( I would agree btw) and some pro-choice people are for abortion which I believe (to say no one is pro abortion is silly . Obviously some women who have them are and some boyfriends who coerce women to have them are as well and then the “doctors”) you still have the anti-legal abortion people like me and the others you would cast as dupes protesting and marching with the bishops. That’s 3 views. I’m sure there are many shades of lukewarm in between. It seems Dan and Mr. Campbell are being dualistic. If no one is pro-abortion then you are either anti-abortion or pro-choice.
Actually I would say all boyfriends who coerce women are pro-abortion. All this to explain sarcasm. Sheesh.
It may be true that a person can be pro-choice but anti-abortion. It may be true that a person can believe in the personhood and attendant dignity of unborn persons and still believe in protecting a woman’s “choice”. But I don’t see how this is possible unless one espouses precisely what Gerald is trying to argue against: a philosophy that exalts the autonomous individual and a voluntarist account of the human will. Only somebody who signs on to such a philosophy could countenance purchasing “choice” at the cost of millions of innocent lives.
God bless you Br. Matthew.
Henry,
Weren’t you, just yesterday, arguing that President Bush was pro-abortion because he didn’t favor making all abortions illegal?
BA
I was aruging within the premises established in the discussion. That is, if one is saying that being pro-choice makes them pro-abortion, then Bush being pro-choice makes him pro-abortion. In other words, it was assuming the premises of the argument; that made Bush pro-abortion. Of course, I don’t agree with the premises. But that is a different question. Ultimately the point is that Bush falls in the same ways as with other pro-choicers, however you will describe them.
Gerald,
We are in agreement about the broad nature of the struggle to defeat abortion, about its many and varied dimensions that exceed the matter of legislation. MM has posted on this a few times as well, for which I am thankful. However, I must say that Br. Matthew’s points are convincing: I think perhaps you do not give enough weight to the power that the “mere” law has in changing minds and imbuing our culture with the proper intellectual/moral resources to eradicate such an atrocity for good (or at least substantially). I do not think that the effort to overturn Roe is mute in the realm of ideas, nor in the realm of practical results. I will never propose the legal reform as the sole path to ending abortion, and to anyone who advocates such a position I say you are poisoned by a disturbing form of “conservatism.” But it is not at all clear to me that overturning Roe is 1) ineffective for the cause because it is mere law or 2) ineffective at this stage, before hearts and minds are changed. Shouldn’t the legal protection of the unborn be, as Br. Matthew notes, an end in itself? Shouldn’t we work for conceptual change as well as legal change? With Prohibition, we see law regulating matters of prudential judgment. Does the killing of the innocent unborn really fall under the same jurisdiction?
On a side note: I personally believe that the only way to truly change hearts and minds and deal a proverbial deathblow to abortion is to foster alternative forms of moral reflection and incarnate a philosophical revolution into the practical realm of society. Because I believe the theoretical “justifications” for supporting abortion or pro-choice over pro-life stem from a philosophy of radical individualism, personal autonomy, and secular idolatry (all stemming from the conceptual “liberalism” of the Enlightenment), such a change in conception would in fact commit Catholic conservatives and liberals to reject a significant portion of their political ideologies that derive precisely from this same philosophy. Cut out the roots, and we may lose some flowers.
It is also not at all clear to me that the distinction between “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” really holds up. I understand the reasoning, but isn’t the notion of “pro-choice” in this matter built upon inherently false premises? We would likely have no problem with government intervention and legislation against Nazis systematically slaughtering Jews; could we conceive of someone articulating a position in favor of each Nazi’s right to “choose” whether or not to gas Jews, as if it were his business and none of mine? It seems to me that Obama’s argument about government intervention is wholly misguided. The criticism of it need not simply be a matter of the Right’s “distortion.” Is it so much to ask of those supporting prudential judgment in this case that it may not be a valid issue for which we should have the legally protected choice? Again, how is it different from murder?
There is also the matter, as folks like Christopher and Alexam and others rightly bring up, that Obama’s rhetoric, in adamantly hailing abortion as a “reproductive right,” grossly undermines the values he seems to promote. How is it for the battle of hearts and minds when we set in stone a radical distinction between protecting certain reproductive rights but not the fundamental right to life of the innocent unborn? With such distinctions, how could we ever expect the other side to even begin conceiving of the unborn as fully human and worthy of protection!? That seems a huge step backward in the theoretical battle. Not to mention his support of legislation that would seemingly ensure abortion as an ongoing good old American institution! With evidence like this, I do not at all find it convincing that Obama will happily aid the conservatives who come to him in humility and honesty.
So in short: It is not clear to me that overturning Roe is an unimportant effort, and one that should be postponed until hearts are converted; it is not clear to me that the matter can even be framed in terms of “choice” in the first place, because there are countless other issues about which there is no legal protection for one’s choice (murder?); it is not clear to me that opposing government intervention and enforcement in this matter even makes sense or somehow exonerates pro-choicers from a dangerous proximity to unthinkable evil: would we have the same attitude about German citizens who are not in favor of gassing Jews, but nonetheless oppose any government or legal infringement upon each Nazis personal choice to do so? Does that even make sense to frame it like that? It seems to do so begs the question and sneakily posits the murder of innocent human beings as “right” or a matter of prudential judgment that law should protect.
All in all, the burden is most certainly on those who support pro-choice presidents to provide “proportionate reasons” and of course not merely assert that any reason counts. Just as no conservative should claim that no such reasons are possible a priori, acting as though their prudential judgments infallible. What I would like is for those who support Obama and others and believe they have proportionate reasons to list them, and together try and work through whether or not these hold up. So far, I am not convinced, and I encourage those in the discussion who have begun to offer their reasons to deepen them and keep it coming. I would also welcome discussion about the alternative policies (economic, social, etc.) that should be enacted in order to battle abortion holistically, and whether or not Republicans have honestly judged with proper prudence regarding them.
Pax Christi,
[...] I was browsing the latest WordPress stories and came across a totally idiotic post. The title “Obama, the proabort” really set me off. If was just another of the increasingly negative slams against Barack Obama the [...]
I am still waiting to hear an explanation of how any human being with a moral compass could vote against the born alive act. Obama’s legislative stalling and his later votes cast against that legislation alone is enough to disqualify him from getting my vote.
Well, since I’m unable to penetrate “the deeper arguments” according to Gerarld, I’ll simply add that I concur with what X-Cathedra and Br. Matthew have said.
Insofar as Obama appears to be stubbornly wedded to the understanding of “choice” as put forth by Planned Parenthood and NARAL and at complete odds with the Church, there appears to be a philosophical gulf between the two camps that not even he can bridge with his rhetoric.
Gerald is concerned with Power and Will — what else is Obama committed to but the assertion of the mother’s will over that of the unborn within her, at any cost?
A nice summary of Obama on abortion and related issues.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
In spite of all the high power sophistry on display in this thread, the simple fact is that in this area Obama is totally opposed to the teaching of the Catholic Church. For Catholics, at least those who put their religion ahead of their political allegiances, that should matter a lot.
I can see from this post that Catholics have such kind hearts and truly good intentions. How is it, though, that you became so misguided as to put the abortion issue foremost on your voting agendas? You must at this point need to willfully avoid watching the news, even Fox News, to make sure you don’t catch wind of the atrocities committed in our names on an international scale. How do you shield yourselves from all the pain that’s caused, domestically and abroad, the tearing down of people’s homes in New Orleans to rebuild luxury hotels, the billions of dollars this war has made for the people who waged it by lying 935 times.
Please, at least tell me it weighs somewhat on your consciences that these folks got in by catering to the gay-bashing pro-Life crowd. Jesus was much more explicit about war & poverty than he ever was about abortion.
None of the cadidates are either willing or capable of stopping the slaughter of our unborn. America’s entire system of governance is satanically rigged to produce injustice, for it is founded upon idolatry and violence. Don’t believe me? That’s fine. But ponder the fruits: thousands of nukes ready to annihilate the world, millions of abortions, and a “justice” system that can’t stop torture or the crowding of our prisons with blacks and latinos.
The monsters of the Apocalypse are alive and well in this world, and they live in the political structure of the United States. And how many have bought into that structure? Don’t you recognize a beast when it rises, when it usurps the authority of Christ and offers to solve all our problems? Can’t you recognize the satanic influence in your own bickering with one another, full of malice and judgment? Don’t you feel the need for confession?
Christ and his Church give us a model for social life – a model based upon family, trinity, communion, and mercy. Its time for Catholics to withdraw their allegiance from a corrupted political system run by Republicrats. The solution is the Gospel, evangelization, and a new political movement sprearheaded by we – the People of God.
M. Frederick Voorhees,
I’m not sure I understand: if we both understand the same thing by the word “abortion,” how can it not be foremost in anyone’s voting agenda, whether you lean left or right??? The “shielding” you are talking about is precisely the kind of dichotomy that I don’t understand either. I think it is a deeply ingrained presupposition of political reasoning in this country that one can only be an activist or even care about the issues as they are cut-up and rationed out by the two dominant parties. I don’t see why an orthodox and politically informed Catholic can’t protest outside of a penitentiary and hours later walk across the street to protest outside the Planned Parenthood. I myself have protested outside of both. This is why I appreciate the posts and discussion on the notion of a consistent Culture of Life. So in short, I deny the “either/or” you seem to be suggesting. Personally, Fox News leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Nor do I get my gospel truth from Daily Kos. But my own prudential judgments lead me to believe that the war has been an unjust war according to Catholic social reasoning. I also have sincere doubts and concerns about Republican economic policies and their potential failure to represent charity and solidarity; about the Catholic conservatives getting perhaps too cozy to the Evangelical conservatives without giving enough weight to the problems implied by their divergences; and broadly about the influence that bad philosophy and bad theology have on certain strains of conservatism. These are all personal prudential judgments, one’s that fellow Catholics may come to different conclusions about while holding the same principles. Precisely what I am doing here is hoping that dialogue will test whether or not these judgments of prudence are in fact correct, or whether they need to be emended.
But on the issue of abortion, the prudential judgments involved refer to whether or not support for a certain candidate for public office in spite of his/her support for abortion is legitimate, citing “proportionate reasons.” I’m looking for some material to base my judgment on, and so far the evidence seems to weigh heavily against folks like Obama. You seem to be implying that you’ve judged the atrocities committed by the pro-life Republican administration provide sufficient reason for supporting a Democrat openly in support of abortion. Is that correct? I’m curious to see what your reasoning looks like…
All in all, yes, personally what I have judged to be evils resulting from the actions of this past administration (not to mention the tight relationship with Evangelical fundamentalism) do weigh on my conscience. But there is always another side to that scale of course. So lets do some weighing…
And as far as that last point about Jesus: that sounds like a shaky Biblical hermeneutic your using there. One might say Jesus was much more explicit about war and poverty than he was about the systematic slaughter of European Jews…
Pax Christi,
Obama/Hillary/McCain/Romney/Guiliani, they are all very similar.
Time to kick to the establishment, and vote for a man who delivered babies, therefore having the best perspective on what it is to be pro-life.
A cut and paste of a blog entry I published on Jan 19, 2008:
With the 35th anniversary of Roe-v-Wade coming January 22nd, I’m bringing it up again in relationship to the coming elections. It seems that so many decide which candidate they’ll vote for based on where that candidate stands on abortion.
Since only the Supreme Court can overturn Roe-Vs-Wade I figured I’d post an article as to the makeup of the Supreme Court, then vs now.
THEN:
Chief Justice:
Warren E. Burger – Appointed by Nixon (R)
Associate Justices:
William O. Douglas – Appointed by F.D. Roosevelt (D)
William J. Brennan, Jr. – Appointed by Eisenhower (R)
Potter Stewart – Appointed by Eisenhower (R)
Byron White – Appointed by Kennedy (D)
Thurgood Marshall – Appointed by L.B. Johnson (D)
Harry Blackmun – Appointed by Nixon (R)
Lewis F. Powell, Jr. – Appointed by Nixon (R)
William Rehnquist – Appointed by Nixon / Reagan (R)
NOW:
Of the 9 Justices currently serving:
1 was appointed by President Ford (R),
2 were appointed by President Reagan (R),
2 were appointed by President Clinton (D),
2 were appointed by George Bush Senior (R),
2 were appointed by George Bush Junior (R).
So, kids, will voting Republican in this coming election MAKE it go away? Highly unlikely (see the two examples above).
My point: vote for a candidate based on other issues besides their views on abortion. The candidate you elect can’t/won’t do much about that issue anyway.
———-
(For the record: I hate abortion, and I’ve been a registered Republican since I was old enough to register)
Gerald, thanks!
How Catholics have been treated in America is totally unrelated to the argument I was making and I think you both know that.
It’s only unrelated if you don’t actually think through what you said.
I’m not going to read through or comment on anything else above. ‘Cept Nate’s comment. I agree with him.
Donny,
I think you bring up a very significant point. There has not a been a strong effort on the part of Republican presidents to overturn Roe v. Wade. I don’t expect that to change.
Actually Donny, a good agument against your point of view is the Supreme Court decision of Carhart linked below which upheld the partial birth abortion ban. Republican justices may not always vote pro-life, but the Democrat Justices appointed by Bill Clinton always vote pro-abortion. A President Clinton or Obama would be quite certain to appoint justices who would vote to keep Roe the law of the land forever.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf
X-Cathedra, your posts have been gems in this thread!
HAVEN’T DONE A DAMN THING TO OVER RULE IT: 7 OUT OF 9 REPUBLICAN APPOINTED JUSTICES
That’s not true. Out of the Justices currently serving on the Court, Scalia and Thomas have voted to overrule Roe. Roberts and Alito are almost certain to vote that way. The Republican Justices who have voted to affirm Roe are Souter, Stevens, and Kennedy. Kennedy wouldn’t even be on the Supreme Court but for the fact that the Democrats pulled out all the stops to block Bork, who would have been the fifth vote to overrule Roe in 1992. Moreover, no one — not even Kennedy himself — knew that he would ultimately vote to affirm Roe in that 1992 case; in fact, Kennedy switched sides at the last minute in that case. Souter — nobody really knew what he was going to do; I suspect the main reason he was named to the Court is because the previous nomination (Bork) had gone down in flames, leading Bush to look for a non-descript judge who hadn’t taken any positions that could be demonized.
Oh really, Stuart? What about when Roberts told senators Roe v. Wade was “the settled law of the land” and that “there’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.” Was he lying?
MM — We’ve been over this before, and I care to repeat myself unless you’re going to pay attention this time.
I don’t care, that is.
OK, I’ll repeat myself: Fact one: Roberts has already voted to uphold the federal partial-birth abortion law, something that he wouldn’t do if he supported Roe (like the dissenters in that case). Given that Roberts now has a track record of a pro-life vote, there’s no basis for looking back to his confirmation hearing and pretending that there’s still doubt about how he’ll vote.
Fact two: Given the way that Democrats treated Bork and Thomas, in large part due to their already-published opposition to Roe, Republican nominees since that time have learned to keep their heads down, and to thread the needle very carefully in saying that they’ll treat Roe as a precedent or as “settled law” (both of which are meaningless concessions, given that Supreme Court Justices overrule “settled law” all the time).
I agree with X-cathedra and Br. Matthew. And while the reference to killing Jews in Nazi Germany is apropos, there are other analogies that we could invoke that weigh much more heavily on liberal Catholic imaginations than dead Jews. (If you doubt me, just read some of their posts on Israel.)
For instance, it isn’t that people were in favor of dropping atomic bombs on the Japanese — they were merely in favor of “ending the war quickly”. There, aren’t you glad I just cleared that up for you? Likewise, those dreaded neo-conservatives aren’t in favor of torture, per se — they’re merely pro-information, as in extracting however much of it is needed in order to prevent future terrorist attacks. Lastly, a fair number of those favoring the death penalty are, when all is said and done, simply “pro-security”.
So the next time any of these issues come up, let’s all remember nomenclature games like the ones Gerald has introduced us to. And when that day comes, no doubt Gerald himself will be leading the way calling for an increased understanding of all those positions I enumerated, lest we allow “dark shadows of cynicism to invade and form the thinking process” and thereby dissuade us from “a higher aspiration than self-interest”. Because if there’s anything that can be said for all those anti-choicers picketing outside the clinics, it’s that they’re all motivated solely by naked self-interest.
(And for the record, I do not for a moment think that putting to death a sadistic murderer who endangers both prison guards and fellow inmates is in any way comparable to killing a fetus — I only made the analogy because I know relatively few people on this site seem to be able to make that distinction.)
Let’s also note for future reference Gerald’s reflexive habit of issuing big steaming piles, much like a squid squeezing out ink in order to make a getaway, every time he’s confronted with a difficult question. In lieu of a straight answer, he gives us lofty doublespeak about “the role that language and leadership plays in unleashing forces that lie hidden within the human spirit”, and other such blather more flatulent than even Obama himself (and that’s saying something). In this thread, at least, the ends of all that are made clear: i.e. getting the rest of us to swallow nuggets such as “he’s not pro-abortion — he’s pro-CHOICE”.
And here I was all along thinking that Obama actually *enjoyed* abortions, in the way an English lord thrills to the call of the fox hunt. But now I know better — thanks for clarifying that up, Gerald. I feel so relieved now, though I do feel embarrassed for all those bishops and popes. What asses they were, to engage in so much hand-wringing over a simple misunderstanding regarding politicans who are merely pro-choice.
By the way, is anyone from the “pro-choice” camp even going to bother answering Jonh’s 6:29pm post regarding Obama’s efforts in, ahem, helping to safeguard a woman’s right to choose a partial-birth abortion?
One would hope that any response could be made with a minimum of calls to “uplift society”, complaints about the health care system, and other such diversionary tactics.
X-Cathedra:
You’re right about the political parties, and the illogical pairing of their respective positions. But while you and I may be pro-life AND anti-war, the powerful dichotomy of our corrupt political parties forces candidates (and therefore voters) to decide whom they’d rather save—millions of unborn babies or millions of yet-to-be-slaughtered human beings. As Giuliani has shown, you can’t earn your party’s nomination unless you pay lip service to its hallmark “values” issues. Romney knows it, and has flip-flopped accordingly on same-sex marriage. You have to either side with the baby-killers on the Left or the homophobic gay-bashers on the Right. Who knows what Obama feels inside.
None of our candidates, not even Huckabee, see abortion as a vital issue; they’re all just taking the side their party tells them to. Make no mistake, though—McCain, Hillary, Romney, or Huckabee WILL all take us to war against Iran. Obama will not, nor will Edwards or Ron Paul. And that’s why the people who stand to make billions on another war are doing everything in their power to smear these candidates, the ones who can’t be bought.
I’m glad you mentioned the concentration camps, because they exemplify what happens when an entire nation refuses to think for itself. Why not do some research on the powerful special interest groups who co-opted the Bush Administration into the 935 lies they told about Iraq? And why not ask yourselves which campaigns these same corporations and foundations are currently funding. By all means, do your own research–don’t take my word for it. We have an obligation to make sure our government never again sends our soldiers to kill and die UNLESS the cause is just and threat real. Single-issue voters are turning their backs on the future of this country, which includes, I might add, unborn babies who WON’T be aborted.
Stuart, that’s complete crap and you know it. He’s playing the same weasily game played by politicians when it comes to abortion. He claims he has no personal issues with applying Roe v. Wade. Either he is a liar, or he has serious ethical flaws. You can indulge in these nudge-nudge-wink-wink games all you like, but I happen to think the SC– as the source of the so-called “right”– should be held to a higher standard.
MM,
Oh really, Stuart? What about when Roberts told senators Roe v. Wade was “the settled law of the land” and that “there’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.” Was he lying?
Then:
He claims he has no personal issues with applying Roe v. Wade. Either he is a liar, or he has serious ethical flaws. You can indulge in these nudge-nudge-wink-wink games all you like, but I happen to think the SC– as the source of the so-called “right”– should be held to a higher standard.
Try to consider a few things:
1. Unfortunately, the Democrats have made it impossible to get a SCOTUS appointment who is on record as favoring overturning RvW. It’s not honest to fault presidents who desire appointing such justices but have to seek out stealth appointees and merely hope for the best. Blame those who gleefully use the new verb they coined “Bork”.
2. As someone who thinks RvW is an atrocious decision both on results and the application of law, if I were interviewed by the Senate I could honestly say, “RvW is the settled law of the land” – because it is. That’s not to say that it can’t be overturned later depending on the makeup of the court or a due to a just decision on some future case which has the effect of negating RvW – it’s merely on honest answer that leaves it up to the questioners to decide whether to dig deeper or not. He also said, “there’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent”. One could say that without elaborating further and including “unless some case comes along that in the name of justice and sound law would negate that precedent”. Sure, a half truth can be the equivalent of a lie, but it can also be merely exercising wisdom, it depends on the nature, intention and circumstances involved and precisely what is said. Again, if it weren’t for the Dems, an appointee that has the proper view of RvW wouldn’t have to be “creative” in his responses. Sad commentary, I know, but it is what it is.
I like the story of when the Arians were looking to apprehend St. Athenasius (I don’t know if it’s mere legend or verifiable). St. Athenasius was on the bank of a river when two men rowed up and asked him if he’s seen Athenasius. The good saint replied, “He’s right in front of you…row faster!”, which they did. I don’t know Robert’s heart and mind, but if they are properly ordered, I can see how his responses to the Senate were ethical. Nevertheless, if we believe that RvW is bad law and that presidents and their nominees to SCOTUS should be soundly anti-RvW, you need to fault the Dems and the people who vote for them. I’d add that it’s the sum of these sorts of things why one should never vote for a pro-abort politician (for any office) and at least be leery of voting Dem because the party influence over its members.
And lets not forget that it’s the type of jurists that go along with RvW which can justify all sorts of bad decisions that favor big business and big government to the detriment of justice and the common man ( i.e. the Kelo decision).
Stuart, that’s complete crap and you know it.
No, I don’t “know it.” I know the opposite of the spin that you’re peddling here — I know that Roberts has already voted to uphold abortion regulation; I know that colleagues of Roberts are sure that he would vote to overturn Roe; and I know that in the American political context (to which you seem to be quite new), Democrats have a 20-year history of trying to block any Republican Supreme Court nominee that expresses any doubt whatsoever about Roe, which thus requires Republican nominees to speak in a very precise and lawyer-like fashion that doesn’t give any real indication about how they would vote on Roe.
If anyone is interested in a woman’s “from the gut” opinion of abortion, just go to jennyhaha.blogspot.com, January 24th entry, I believe. The woman who writes the blog, Jenny, is from Texas. Her husband is a carpenter. One of her toddle-aged daughters just had surgery to correct a major heart defect. Jenny and her husband have problems with conception but she is now pregnant. Although I do not agree with her posting revolting pictures of aborted fetuses, she does have a point.