On another matter, Senator Obama never said anything about his daughter having an abortion. The issue was be believed she should be provided accurate information about human reproduction so that she would not have to suffer teenage motherhood. Yes, he used the imperfect phrase “punished with a baby.” (Suggesting in fact that he expected his teenage pregnant daughter not to abort but to give birth). The political hacks jumping on this (save those who are authentically joyful when their unmarried teenage daughters announce they will be having a blessed event) are totally out of line.

It would seem that objective truth–that life and humanity are present from conception–is much more significant in this argument than our pro-choice friends want to admit.

In Florida, the bill to require women getting an abortion to be shown an ultrasound failed to pass, thanks to a few Republicans who joined the Democrats. Again, that position cannot possibly be explained by this notion that Democrats dislike abortion itself but dislike criminalization even more. This bill had nothing to do with criminalization. The problem is that most Democrats are against any law that might ever result in a woman choosing anything except abortion.

That’s actually one of the articles that convinced me that an EM has the responsibility to deny someone communion (within the right conditions, of course). I also think that some Catholics do see this issue as some kind of political game and it’s disgusting that the way they approach this issue is the same way the media has fun with politics. We better be careful about conde,ning bishops for the simple fact that we do not know what is going on in the background.

I understand Gerald’s points in this thread, although I think his quotation of Maritain didn’t have much weight as much as he liked it to be. I think his argument could be held apart from that quote.

Anyway, the crucial issue on this matter is not necessarily canon law. It runs much deeper. It seems to me that the problem here, the crucial issue, is our understanding of **FREEDOM***. How do we understand freedom? Are we free to come up to communion when we hold such and such positions? Or is freedom a responsibility before a fact, an exceptional fact? This lack of understanding of true freedom comes from a skepticism: Christ cannot be my life. He cannot really be everything to me. Because if we are not skeptics, then to say “Yes” to Christ, to affirm and embrace that Christ can be everything means that we must embrace the Church in her entirety. So I think the theological problem underneath this issue is freedom, to realize our capacity to adhere to Being.

I wish I could write more on this. Off to my A. MacIntyre paper!

jh, May God bless and keep you and shine His Light upon you. Never fear, you are always in His hands and He has great things in store for you.

Gerald Campbell and Policraticus, Thank you for a rollicking romp through the blogosphere. God Bless and Keep You. Let’s all pray to St. Hillary tonight, that she will intercede for Obama, HRC, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Kerry and Deal Hudson.

Exactly — it’s just wishful thinking to suppose that Obama, of all people, would inculcate a “culture” of respect for the unborn life that he himself has described as a punishment.

I suspect that most pro-lifers agree with your point that it is not currently possible to pass comprehensive anti-abortion legislation. And yet, I’m not clear why you seem to think that the fact that such legislation cannot be passed at this time means that we should not bother our heads about electing those who say they would support legislation against abortion, rather than those who say they actively want to protect the “right to abortion”.

Now, I do agree with you that we will need to achieve further change of the culture before we are able to change our nation’s laws so that they do not enshrine abortion. What, however, I (and it would seem many others) am unclear on is how you think that goal of changing the culture can be achieved by enthusiastically lending your support to someone (Obama) who so totally disagrees with you on the topic. Obama has shown no inclination at all to provide the unborn with any protection or to denounce abortion as the killing of innocent human life. So even if we are to take it that he is such a brilliant speaker and leader that he will change the minds of hearts of Americans on many issues — it would seem in that case that he would change their minds to discount the human lives of unborn children. (Unless somehow his rhetorical brilliance consists of convincing people to hold positions opposite to his own.)

So far as I can tell, your thinking in this regards is basically that Obama clearly loves people in general so much, that when we’re all inspired to follow his example everyone will wake up and realize they need to respect the lives of the unborn as well — even though Obama in no way says that that is the case. In that sense, you and others like Professor Kmiec are essentially treating Obama as a tabula rasa for your own beliefs: assuming that he must somehow, at some deeper level agree with you, even when he gives nothing but contrary indications.

[I would like to hear your philosophical rationale why the taking of the life of the unborn differs from the taking of the life of a child, a young man or women, or an old man or woman. Why is the taking of the life of the unborn intrinsically evil and the taking of other lives not so?]

As for your comments, you ask: “What prevents the judgement that there exist no particular circumstances under which abortion is justified?”

I’m not arguing that abortion is justified. Never have. In principle, I don’t believe abortion is justified and would argue so. I assume we agree on that point.

But that is not the issue I have been addressing. To be sure, the point that abortion is not justified must be taken into account in practical decision-making — even if only to reflect on it in the back of one’s mind (like victory in war) — but there are many other factors that come into play as well which diminish the form of this principle on the act itself. [In my note about the moral act, I spell some of the things that are involved. Yet, none of these factors (e.g., contingency, ignorance, etc.) are used to justify abortion. ]

No one can impose by fiat this principle on the whole of society. I can’t do it. No one can. Nor would I attempt to do so. It is not within the realm of practical possibility.

But one can design strategies that will move a society to move towards an absolute respect for the dignity of the human person. To realize this end, much of America will have to be transformed.

The fact that personal dignity can be argue in the intellectual order and from revelation does not change the situation. Universals, whatever their origin, are considered in the speculative order. But when they meet contingency in the moral act, their power to give form to matter is greatly diminished. That’s why progress in history moves along hesitatingly.

Hope I addressed your point.