Why I Cannot Support Republicans on the Abortion Issue
These arguments do really seem to go around in circles. The defenders of the Republican party seem to rely on a single line of un-nuanced linear reasoning: these Democrats (plus a few Republicans) believe something that is actually a great evil to be a “right”, somthing good, and hence voting for them is beyond the pale. Next you will be presented with abortion statistics that would lead one to think of an on-off switch: pull the lever for Republicans and abortion does to zero, swing to the Democrats and you have a holocaust. Now, I’m deliberately trivializing and caricaturing the argument, but at some fundamental level, this is the point they are trying to make.
Unfortunately, the world is not so simple. I do not wish to get into the key issues of moral theology here — this was the topic of one of my first ever post on Vox Nova. Instead I wish to make a more direct point. The Republican argument is built upon a possible house of cards. Their strategy is simple, and it is the only game in town as far as they are concerned. The idea is to elect politicians who may or may not appoint judges who may or may not overturn Roe v. Wade, which may or may not substantially reduce the legal availability of abortion, which may or may not affect the actual incidence of abortion. That’s it. Note the great uncertainties at each link in the chain, uncertainties which are never mentioned by the Republican supporters.
With all these leakages, simple statistics suggests the final probability of abortion actually falling under this strategy may indeed be low. At the same time, we are told that a “deal with the devil” is necessary because of the overwhelming importance of the abortion issue. We are told that other aspects of Catholic social teaching can be routinely sacrificed, when they really should not be sacrificed. In its Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the bishops note that all life issue are connected and caution against ”the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity.” On these matters, the guidance of Church leaders is not just another political opinion that can be discarded at will.
So, Catholics are told they must support Republicans because of abortion, when the ability of Republican policies to impact abortion is suspect, and not to worry about the other deviations from Catholic teaching, even when these deviations have been magnified in recent years. But I’ve noticed something strange. Many Catholic Republicans who back this party on abortion are often not too bothered by its other positions. The same abortion-first Catholics are often right up at the front of the line cheering the Iraq war and occupation. They are the first to disdain and dismiss global warming. They implicitly support an economic policy predicated on a preferential option for the rich. They don’t bother too much about inequality and health care. They love the coercive power of the state when it is used to bomb countries and seal borders against immigrants, but jump up and down when it is used to tax them and regulate gun ownership in the name of the common good. And, God forbid, a small but vocal minority even play down the Church’s teachings on torture and nuclear weapons. This is the problem I have with many Catholics who support Republicans on abortion. They seem all too comfortable with the nationalism, the militarism, the consequentialism, and the free market liberalism that often underpins the platform of that party.
Of course, there are those like Christopher Blosser who like to catalogue all the great achievements of the Republican party on the abortion issue. Unfortunately, this is just tinkering around the edges, throwing a few bones to the anti-abortion supporters while they got on with the real agenda. As horrendous as it is, does anybody really believe the partial-birth abortion ban will do anything to reduce abortion rates?
Ah, but there are the statistics! Blosser refers to recent Guttmacher data as supportive of the wondrous work Bush and his friends have done to reduce abortion. After all, abortion rates are at their lowest level since 1974. But this is a long-term story. Let’s look at the actual declines broken down by presidency. Under the Republican presidencies (Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II), the abortion rate declined on average by 0.3 percentage points a year. Under Clinton’s two terms, it declined by 0.5 percentage points a year. The earlier data had pointed to a standstill under Bush, while the new and updated data show only that the decline has returned to its pre-Clinton historical average.
But this is not too surprising, and it turns out that economics matters. Guttmacher notes that 57% of women opting for abortion are economically disadvantaged, and that the abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level. Moreover, when asked to give reasons for abortion, three-quarters of women say that cannot afford a child. At the same time, black women are almost four times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are two and a half life times as likely. I did some basic econometric analysis a while back on this blog, showing a firm link between poverty rates and abortion rates.
I am not saying that it is all economics, and that legal availability has no effect. I don’t believe that for a second. But I also believe the Republican’s narrowness when it comes to this issue is bankrupt and self-serving, It is for very good reason that the USCCB calls for a consistent ethic of life. noting that all life issues are connected, and that the moral imperative to provide for the basic needs of our neighbors is universally binding on our consciences.
Comments are closed.
I think this is an important point. The Republican party benefits more than any other political organization from the legality of abortion, due to the way abortion as a platform plank affects election politics for them. There are vast swaths of voters that would be far more likely to swing towards a moderate democrat were it not for abortion being a huge issue. Hence the most politically advantageous position for the Republican party is to decry the legality of abortion while using the complexity of the process required to actually outlaw abortion as a screen for maintaining the status quo. I don’t ascribe a kind of direct conspiracy in this regard to all Republicans, but I think it is more or less true in a broad sense. The only way I would feel truly compelled to vote purely on the basis of the abortion issue (and I have certainly considered it) is if the candidate in question was explicit about doing everything in his power to overturn Roe v. Wade. Having a “pro-life” Republican in office that is practically speaking unwilling to take serious and unequivocal steps towards outlawing abortion is functionally equivalent to having a Democrat in office who is “personally pro-life” but supports a woman’s right to chose.
Thank you. In this one entry you have written exactly what I have wanted to explain to my Catholic brother in law on the idea of voting Republican simply because of the abortion issue. Not that the abortion debate is unimportant, however basing your vote entirely on this issue always struck me as ridiculously simplistic.
Just my humble opinion as a not so good Catholic. I hope you have a blessed day.
Thankfully, the Republican congress under Clinton controlled government spending so well, at the same time the tech economy boomed, so there were many jobs available and lower taxes for all.
How else would one explain the decline of abortion during those years? Certainly not to social programs dedicated to assisting the poor with unplanned pregnancy, unless you have evidence of something like that….?
What a bunch of cowpucky.
If someone says that they will defend a womans right to have an abortion at will, and someone says that they will do what ever they can to reduce abortions, what are you saying you would choose?
You are a victim of the old self full filing prophecy stuff. Yes Catholics should vote for a candidate who opposes abortion. The problem is that they don’t. Your argument would hold more weight if they did, but they don’t. So to say they should makes perfect sense and you don’t make any sense.
The fact that abortions declined a little bit faster during Democratic presidents is meaningless. This can be such a complicated issue that to simplify it to that is just plain stupid. The only way it will get turned around is to get judges that will defend life.
That is it. So the question is what kind of judges would a liberal who is pro-abortion choose? What kind of a judges will someone who is opposed to abortion choose?
That’s all.
This can be such a complicated issue that to simplify it to that is just plain stupid. The only way it will get turned around is to get judges that will defend life.
There seems to be a bit of tension, if not outright contradiction, between the first sentence and the second.
Your analysis takes it as an assumption not only that the Democratic platform (in areas other than abortion) is objectively beneficial to the common good (as understood by Catholic social teaching) but also that your fellow Catholics recognize and understand this.
On the contrary, many of us do not see Democratic policies as reflecting a truly Catholic understanding of the common good at all.
“Note the great uncertainties at each link in the chain, uncertainties which are never mentioned by the Republican supporters.”
There is a reason this often goes unsaid. Consider that the only other option is the complete certainty that the Democrats will appoint pro-Roe Supreme Court justices.
So basically, it doesn’t matter what they say? We can vote for a candidate who is serious about killing off Jews so long as we think there are other mitigating circumstances which may make his plans for holocaust improbable?
I suppose we could go into “control-alt-counterargument” mode here, but . . . if MM is going to keep making this argument, I think people have to keep saying in response:
Yes, of course, it will not end abortion to correct the constitutional errors of Roe v. Wade. It will, however, almost certainly reduce the number. And, it will move us from Situation A — in which the fundamental charter of our political community is taken to constitutionalize an asserted “autonomy” right to kill inconvenient people — to Situation B — in which this is no longer the case, and there is the hope of convincing people, in the marketplace of ideas and politics, to better respect life. This is no small thing. It is certainly a much, much bigger thing than, say, moving the income-tax rates or the minimum wage up a tick.
Also, it is simply not the case — and arguments that assume without demonstration that it *is* the case are just tedious — that the GOP position on the various issues (e.g., how much money to spend on reducing carbon emissions) MM discusses is the clearly wrong (indeed, the clearly non-Catholic) one. It just isn’t. On many questions, not just abortion, it is eminently reasonable to think either that (a) there isn’t any real difference between the parties or (b) the Democrats’ position does not well serve social justice and the common good. And so, even if abortion were not an issue at all, it would still be entirely reasonable for a faithful Catholic to conclude that the common good is better and more faithfully served by electing Republicans than by electing Democrats. (Unlike MM, apparently, I can also happily concede that, were abortion not an issue, a reasonable and faithful Catholic could also come to the opposite conclusion.).
Jonathan: I don’t agree with your analysis but I credit you for recognizing the economic dimension of abortion.
Rick: yes and no. I have never said that Catholics should not vote Republican, even on issues aside from abortion. But it is simply a fallacy to assume that just because Catholics can differ on solutions to problems, that every envisaged solution is equally acceptable. For example, while I think Catholics can quite honestly support poverty reduction through a traditional welfare state or through some kind of in-work benefits (such as the EITC), it would be wrong to simply appeal to trickle-down effects of cuts upper income and corporate tax rates to do the job for you. Likewise, you can support single payer systems in health care, or you can try to design a solution based on privaet insurance companies, but you simply cannot expect to be aligned with Catholic social teaching by appealing to tax credits, when all evidence shows that they will have negigible effects. On global warming, there are many different policy options on the table, but why do so many Republicans deny its very existence? I could go on. I’m afraid that on many of these issues, the Republicans simply don’t have acceptable solutions.
THe fact is that Republicans have been in the lead in the hard hard fight to limiting Abortion. I used to know more Democrats that were but they either got voted out of office or retired(John Breaux and Bennet Johnson and Chris John from Louisiana) or they became Republican
I often hear but hey look abortion is still legal. Well besides Goerge Bush sending in the CIA to posion Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg I am not sure what we can do.
It takes time. The sad fact is when Republican Legislators stood up often we in the grassrotts have been lacking. We suffured a defeat in Missouri on Stem Cell Research? We did not make our case ot the public.
In the Dakotas the legislature passed an almost complete ban on abortion. It had to go the people. We lost that fight. Why?
On the contrary, many of us do not see Democratic policies as reflecting a truly Catholic understanding of the common good at all.
Right. They’re not radical enough. But the Republican policies bear NO RESEMBLANCE to Catholic social doctrine. NONE.
Tony, you wouldn’t support the Republican party under any circumstance. Abortion is not just a high priority to you in comparison to your allegiance to the Democrat party.
MM says: “I’m afraid that on many of these issues, the Republicans simply don’t have acceptable solutions.”
According to whom? YOU? Your personal policy preferences? Surely you’re not going to try to stamp some Church imprimatur on the solutions you prefer as better than those of the Republicans that you find “unacceptable”? If that is what you’re trying to do, then you’re doing the same thing as those you criticize for saying that Catholics must support Republicans because of abortion.
Michael Iafrate says: “[Democrat policies are] not radical enough. But the Republican policies bear NO RESEMBLANCE to Catholic social doctrine. NONE.”
Again, according to whom? YOU?
Look, I don’t think a Catholic MUST vote for any particular party. In fact, I can buy the argument that a Catholic might be able to find proportionate reasons to justify in his own conscience voting for a candidate DESPITE that candidate’s support for abortion.
But fter watching Catholics in the “Obama the Pro-Abort” thread actually try to DEFEND the “abortion rights” position of the Democrat party as a matter of “choice”, I am, once again, convinced that we can put aside all the high-minded talk about “a consistent ethic of life” and “promoting the common good” and justifying it all as a matter of following the Church’s lead on “Catholic social doctrine”.
Because, in the end, people are really just interested in voting their own personal policy preferences and calling it “Church-approved”.
I never thought I’d see the day when, in the context of a discussion on a Catholic blog, a fellow Catholic would advance the claim that “Obama’s not pro-abortion, he’s pro-CHOICE” — and completely skirt the question (when challenged) of what this ‘distinction’ boils down to in terms of the consequences of Obama’s chosen public policy.
Jay: if I was so sure I was right I would claim that, if abortion were not an issue, no Catholic could vote for a Republican. I make no such claim. All I am saying is that, in my opinion, with a certain familiarity with economic and social policy wonkery, I cannot see how Republican policies accord with the common good as understood by the Church. I do not — and indeed, cannot– make this claim with certainty.
If I favor the right of parents to engage in infanticide, while firmly stating that I would not engage in it as a matter of personal preference, am I “pro-choice” or pro-infanticide? If I believe that the law should allow people to possess slaves, while firmly stating that I would not own a slave, am I “pro-choice” or pro-slavery? If I believe in the right of people to lynch prisoners who they “know” are guilty, while making clear that I would never join a lynching myself, am I “pro-choice” or pro-lynching?
You’re arguing beside the point, Donald. Who here is “pro-choice”?
Matt,
In the 165 comment thread about Obama, Gerald Campbell did the following:
1) Stated he is against making abortion illegal
2) Spent a good amount of words differentiating between pro-choice from pro-abortion
3) Argued the pro-choice position was not about freedom to murder but about freedom from government intrusion into ones private life.
Would I be wrong in reading that as a pro-choice stance? I am assuming you are not limited to this thread when you ask who here is “pro-choice”.
You’re arguing beside the point, Donald. Who here is “pro-choice”?
There is one particular member who at every turn has repeatedly reminded us how Obama is “pro-choice”, as distinguished from “pro-abortion,” together with offering various defenses as:
“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.”
“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.”
“Ask yourself that question. Why have laws not been passed to declare abortion murder? Could it have something to do with practical reason?”
Lest I quote him out of context (and feel free to correct me, the source is: the “Obama, proabort” thread.
When repeatedly challenged, he demonstrates little concern for the fact that Obama has not only pledged his unwavering defense of “choice” to Planned Parenthood but has promised to pass something called the Freedom of Choice Act (the latest Democratic attempt to do away with the partial birth abortion ban, together with 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”) — and is at an apparent loss as to how the candidate he supports would repair the philosophical-conceptual gulf that exists between those who affirm a sanctity of life from conception to death, and those who affirm the “right” to kill the unborn.
All this considered, I take that as an indication the individual is in favor of “choice”, however I wouldn’t mind being proven wrong on t his.
Matt, I believe the argument has been made on this blog that Obama is “pro-choice” and not pro-abortion, which I believe is a distinction without a difference.
What Christopher said!
Tony, I personally could care less if you never voted for a Republican. You obviously have deep antipathy to most of the policy positions of the GOP, and you certainly should not vote for a party you oppose. However, I do wish liberal Catholics such as yourself would refrain from voting for pro-abortion candidates and would focus your attention on supporting liberal candidates who are pro-life. I realize those are scarce on the ground now, but I think it is up to pro-life liberals to raise up in the Democrat party liberals who are also pro-life. Some issues are much too important for mere partisanship and for me abortion is one of those issues. Let us imagine that Obama were pro-life and he were facing Giuliani in the Fall. Although I would agree with Obama on virtually nothing , I would unhesitatingly vote for him on this single issue. I have voted for pro-life Democrats in the past when the candidate of my party supported abortion, or when I thought the Democrat would be more forceful in his opposition. I do not expect everyone to do as I have done, but when confronted with a candidate who is 100% pro-abortion, I do wish that all people who oppose abortion would refrain from lending that candidate any support.
Donald and Christopher: could you please keep this on topic, please? This what-Obama-did-or-did-not-mean has nothing to do with my current post. And Christopher, as for your sense of shock, I never thought I would see the day either when the US government would made torture legitimate and turn this country into a rogue nation. If you had told me that would happen 10 years ago, I would have called you paranoid.
Donald, I spent two days posting about the meaning of the word “liberal” and there you go using it erroneously again. Ahhh! But I certainlly agree with you on the need to fight the good right within the Democratic party and restore it what it once was.
Christopher, as for your sense of shock, I never thought I would see the day either when the US government would made torture legitimate and turn this country into a rogue nation.
One reason why I imagine McCain might be better than a Giuliani.
MM, I agree with you. I am strongly opposed to abortion; I will also vote for Obama if he is the Democratic nominee. However, I would add this to your considerations: Catholics who vote for Democrats (or Republicans) that favor abortion rights have a particular responsibility to persuade the candidate and others that abortion is a grave evil which does not jibe with those aspects of the Democratic platform that comport with Catholic social teaching.
“I certainlly agree with you on the need to fight the good right within the Democratic party”
I assume you meant “fight the good fight.” Freudian slip. :)
Michael Iafrate says: “[Democrat policies are] not radical enough. But the Republican policies bear NO RESEMBLANCE to Catholic social doctrine. NONE.”
Again, according to whom? YOU?
I am not speaking for anyone else. Yes, that’s my judgment on the Church’s social doctrine.
In what way(s) do you judge the Republican platform, with the exception of abortion which is obvious, of being a better reflection of Catholic social doctrine? Please be specific.
Indeed, Blackadder!
Catholics who vote for Democrats (or Republicans) that favor abortion rights have a particular responsibility to persuade the candidate and others that abortion is a grave evil which does not jibe with those aspects of the Democratic platform that comport with Catholic social teaching.
I both agree with this, and think it is more than an abstract matter at this point: 2008 is looking more and more like a Democratic Tsunami year.
Catholics who vote for Democrats (or Republicans) that favor abortion rights have a particular responsibility to persuade the candidate and others that abortion is a grave evil which does not jibe with those aspects of the Democratic platform that comport with Catholic social teaching.
So, many of you have the responsibility to persuade George W. Bush that abortion is intrinsically evil in all cases? Man, that’s quite a load you’re placing on your own shoulders.
“Democratic Tsunami year.”
Maybe, maybe not.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/john_mccain_match_ups/election_2008_mccain_vs_clinton_and_obama
I think this election will be much more event driven than most. If the economy tanks, I think it will be a bad year for the Republicans. If the Middle East erupts, or if some big terrorist action occurs, someone like McCain could look very good to a lot of voters. Like most eighth year elections after a two term president, I expect it to be close either way.
Donald and Christopher: could you please keep this on topic, please? This what-Obama-did-or-did-not-mean has nothing to do with my current post.
Why the hostility? Matt Talbot asked a question, and Donald and Christopher were polite enough to answer fully. Would that some of those on the opposing side could be equally gracious.
Granted, the question was fairly bizarre — Matt must either have been away awhile or else he is a spotty reader — but in any case, maybe it’s him you should be snapping at, instead of the two of them,
Let us imagine that Obama were pro-life and he were facing Giuliani in the Fall. Although I would agree with Obama on virtually nothing , I would unhesitatingly vote for him on this single issue.
This is the spirit of the abolitionists in our American history–the spirit that is willing to kill half a million men in order to end an institution which was dying anyway, the spirit that was willing to promote secession rather than allow a compromise for the gradual slow-down of slavery in the Westen States. The thing to remember about such a spirit is that it is PROFOUNDLY un-patriotic–that it would dismember a polity and reduce a community to internecine combat simply for a principle and in complete disregard that one’s fellow citizens do not all see the principle in the same light. Mr. McClary doesn’t understand democracy, and he apparently doesn’t agree with the TRADITIONAL way of interpreting the Constitution.
Michael I., in response to your invitatation — It seems to me that “Republican policies” (with respect to consonance with Catholic teaching) is clearly and dramatically better than “Democratic policies” on, inter alia, church autonomy and religious freedom, school choice, constitutional law and judges, and marriage-and-family. (We are putting aside, for now, abortion, etc.) Do you disagree?
Sorry, I meant to write “are”, not “is”.
Rick: what does Catholic teaching say about “constitutional law”?
As for the other issues:
(1) Marriage and family. I don’t see many Democrats out to change the nature of marriage. I see them as exactly the same when it comes to the problem– the rampant divorce culture. And I see the Democrats possibly more favorable on areas like family and medical leave, child care health care, family wage etc.
(2) Religious freedom: is this an issue? I don’t see anyboby being denied the ability to practice their religion. What exactly are you getting at here?
(3) School choice. I’m with you on this one, but I’m not sure there is a Catholic position on it.
MM — There is, most certainly, a “Catholic position” on school choice. It is entirely clear — far more clear, and authoritatively pronounced, than, say, the “Catholic position” on carbon-emissions control.)
(1) and (2) I simply cannot take seriously. You have established, on this blog, that you are informed about current events and developments in law and policy, and so you cannot possibly be unaware that there are big issues in play, and that the “left” is on the less-Catholic side of them. (Or, perhaps your understanding of religious freedom is, as you often put it when discussing Republicans, “Protestant”, and so you think religious freedom is in good shape so long as no one is being denied the right to believe, as an individual, what he or she chooses?).
If your test is “what does Catholic teaching say about . . . . .”, then please apply it consistently. As it happens, the Catholic Social Tradition provides us with ample resources for worrying about the constitutionalization of ersatz rights, and the not-consistent-with-democracy-or-subsidiarity nature of judicial review as practiced by some judges and justices.
Again I ask, what “constitutional law” issues are you getting at? I say this from the perspective of a traditional conservative who looks suspiciously on wiritten constitutions (especially when endowed with a sola scriptura mystique as in the US) and favors a more custom-based approach.
And no, I claim to follow issues of economic and social policy– not law. That is why I ask what I ask.
My approach to religious freedom is rooted in the Declaration on Religious Liberty. Is there a major issue out there that violates that document? There’s O’Reilly and Donohue trying to push for more recognition of the secular Christmas season during advent, and there are some southern judges fighting over the display of the Decalogue, numbered in the Protestant manner. I have problems with the latter, not because of its disrespect for non-believers, but because it is based on the notion that Christianity is based ultiamtely on a written law, not the natural law. My main point is that I am equally distrusting of southern evangelicals as I am secular liberals in the domain of religion in the public sphere.
“Mr. McClary doesn’t understand democracy, and he apparently doesn’t agree with the TRADITIONAL way of interpreting the Constitution.”
Digbydolben I understand both democracy and the Constitution, thank you very much. As to the rest of your bizarre screed, voting to enact what one believes in is deeply patriotic and democratic. I assume you believe you are doing so when you cast your vote for Obama and his abortion on demand agenda. Your strange argument against me could equally be applied to you and all others who persist in supporting politicians who fight to maintain Roe, a decision that has wreaked havoc in this country for decades, not to mention the millions of innocents slain as a result of it. In a democracy the peaceful way to settle such disputes is at the ballot box. Railing against me for voting pro-life is to rail against democracy itself.
Michael I., in response to your invitatation — It seems to me that “Republican policies” (with respect to consonance with Catholic teaching) is clearly and dramatically better than “Democratic policies” on, inter alia, church autonomy and religious freedom, school choice, constitutional law and judges, and marriage-and-family. (We are putting aside, for now, abortion, etc.) Do you disagree?
1) Church autonomy. Not sure what the Republican or the Democrat position on “church autonomy” is, nor do I know what you mean by that term exactly.
2) Religious freedom. I think there is not much difference between the two on this issue.
3) School choice. No idea what the latest specific positions are from each party on this. I’m all for home schooling or schooling through informal neighborhood cooperatives though, where the kids won’t learn the pledge of allegiance.
4) Constitutional law. Like MM, I have no idea what you mean here.
5) On marriage and family issues, I think that aside from the hot button culture-war issues the Democrat policies seem to support the family more than the Republican ones, as MM said.
So basically, it doesn’t matter what they say? We can vote for a candidate who is serious about killing off Jews so long as we think there are other mitigating circumstances which may make his plans for holocaust improbable?
Ron, the pro-choice advocates (even the “soft”, there-are-other-Catholic-issues pro-choice advocates) don’t draw a parallel between the Jews during the holocaust, and babies in the womb.
With the advent of 4D ultrasound and other imaging technology, people are beginning to see in real time, the development of the tiny human. It’s getting harder and harder to deny the humanity of the unborn.
People like MM don’t appear to see the holocaust of epic proportions that we see. If they did, they wouldn’t be concentrating on “good stewardship of our environment” or “social justice for migrants”. They would be concentrating on the two people that are endowed by their creator with human dignity and the right to life that are being murdered in the womb every minute of every day.
If these were infants, whose heads were being crushed to kill them, there would be an outcry. But we don’t. These little ones are cradled in their mothers’ wombs, out of sight, out of mind, except when they make their appearance in bloody pieces in a stainless steel bowl.
So if the Democrats can find it in their heart to yank the pro-choice plank out of their platform, I will consider voting for them. There are a lot of other issues that I agree with them on. But until then, I’ll never pull the lever for a candidate of death.
Tony – I’m curious… what is the website you always link to: “manlymen.org”? I’d like to know what it is but something tells me I don’t want to click on it; that it might lead to some Man Show-esque baloney.
You’re arguing beside the point, Donald. Who here is “pro-choice”?
Matt, I don’t know for a fact if anyone is. I understand that people who consider themselves faithful Catholics have a desire to vote for Democrats, and in so doing consistently try and minimize the ethic of life in favor of other Catholic issues.
I think this is akin to Protestants who hold certain doctrine as truth, and comb the Bible for verses that support their pre-conceived positions.
I believe “Catholics for Choice” is an oxymoron. The next step down, which MM seems to be advocating is just a Screwtapian attempt to feel good about yourself while pulling the Democrat lever. And self esteem is important to Democrats, isn’t it.
Tony – I’m curious… what is the website you always link to: “manlymen.org”? I’d like to know what it is but something tells me I don’t want to click on it; that it might lead to some Man Show-esque baloney.
Then let me change it.
You sure as heck wouldn’t get this sort of thing from a GOP politician. It’s not just abortion; it’s also a matter of the libertas ecclesiae, the freedom of the church to conduct her affairs within society.
Tony –
1) None of the VN contributors are pro-choice.
2) MM’s views are no where near those of “Catholics for Choice.” You are being deceptive in making that comparison.
3) I don’t care what website you list for yourself; just wanted to know what your site was. If you don’t want to tell us what your site is, that’s fine.
Gerald Campbell is pro-choice.
I haven’t followed ya’ll’s back-and-forth on that one, but I doubt he is pro-choice.
Thank you for this well written piece. Through my own church, I have been bombarded of late with “voter guides” and other proclamations that offer only one choice in this upcoming election…the “pro-life” candidate, only with respect to his view on abortion. And yet, so many other important life issues remain! I appreciate your detailed analysis on the frequency of abortion rates during different presidencies, and the link to the economy at the time. I have considered all of these factors too, and it is truly helpful to me that you are putting these thoughts out there for those of us seeking an alternative to the “with us or against us” rhetoric that receives so much attention.
Thank you for succinctly expressing the complexity of issues entwined in the tragedy of abortion. Until the 2004 election I voted Republican solely because of my beliefs on abortion, ignoring the traditional Catholic concerns of health care, social justice and the death penalty. It was a futile hope, based on the hints and nods aimed at voters by Republican presidential candidates. While guaranteeing the life of the unborn is the ideal, unfortunately, as your article points out, it’s unattainable. We Catholics have a choice: hold out for the ideal, or concentrate on the practical. Unlike those who roar and do nothing, the Democrats are poised to employ strategies to decrease the need, saving lives right now.