Obama, McCain, and Proportionate Reasons
There’s a lot of hot air circulating on this topic. In fact, I’ve probably contributed to it! But I wanted to write a short post explaining my prudential judgment as it relates to the choice of Obama over McCain.
The most common objection to Obama is that he is radically pro-abortion. And from his rhetoric it certainly seems that way. But how much ability does he have to influence abortion? Oh sure, he has some authority at the margin, but fundamentally, he would have little power to affect a so-called “right” that emanates from the Supreme Court. If the million or so abortions that took place each year could be pinned on the acts of one person (Barack Obama) then, yes, I would join the chorus on the right and say that no conceivable proportionate reason could justify supporting him. But this is not the case.
The best they can come up with is his ability to affect the composition of the US Supreme Court. But, sorry, I find that logic too convolutedand subject to grave uncertainty. First, he would need to appoint judges that would be inclined to overturn Roe. That is uncertain, and possibly even more uncertain with McCain than with people like Huckabee. And who knows if this judge will even vote that way when push comes to shove? Even more important, would overturning Roe have much impact on the abortion rate, given that the largest states would surely retain its legality? And what are the limits of criminalization in terms of reducing abortion anyway? All important matters, all glossed over.
In a nutshell, I do not think Obama would do much to affect abortion, one way or the other. I still find his rhetoric chilling, but nobody claimed he was the ideal candidate. But there are two core areas that I think justify voting for him.
First, a repudiation of codpiece diplomacy and the tendency to see war as something more than a last resort. Quite frankly, McCain’s rhetoric scares the hell out of me, especially pertaining to Iran. Given latest estimates suggesting that that perhaps a million people were killed as a result of the gravely mistaken decision to invade and occupy Iraq, the last thing we need is somebody who retains the temperament and tone of the Bush-Cheney approach to the world. I fear more war. I fear more hatred against the United States, that will foment a great blow-back, if not today, then tomorrow. And I am disappointed by McCain’s backtracking on the torture issue, and Obama has always spoken unequivocally against torture. Unlike abortion, these all involve matters of human life and human dignity that will be directly affected by the next president.
Second, the need for universal health care. The fact that about 75 million people in this country cannot attain basic health care needs because they are either uninsured or underinsured is a grave scandal, especially since health care is a basic need in Catholic social teaching. Hillary Clinton’s initiative was actually superior, but Obama is light-years ahead of the “more of the same” approach of McCain– pushing tax credits as the answer, when it is patently obvious that this will do nothing to solve the health care crisis. I also believe that universal health care would also contribute to reducing the incidence of abortion, given that it responds to economic conditions — and witnessed its largest decline during the Clinton years, coinciding with the one period since the early 1970s when productivity growth rebounded and was broadly shared among all income groups. Can I prove this? No, that’s why I said it was a prudential judgment.
There are other issues, but these seem the most important “truly grave moral reasons”. I would possibly add combating climate change as a third, especially since Obama would have the global stature needed to reach an international agreement that McCain could never attain. And even though McCain once had a good record in this area, he has backtracked recently.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
The next president can directly fund the killing of our youngest and weakest with a simple signature on an executive order. Witness the left’s outrage when Pres. Bush declined full funding for embryonic stem cell research or ordered our diplomats at the UN to not support programs focusing on providing abortions to developing countries. So it is obvious that there is a political aspect to this and the idea that the next president can’t affect this is patently false.
The President has as much power to authorize particular abortions – and other atrocities against innocent children – as he has to authorize particular acts of torture.
Witness the “right”‘s approval of Bush’s funding of embryonic stem cell research and trying to draw away all criticism of it as if he had nothing to do with it, despite his own claims for the contrary.
The next president can directly fund the killing of our youngest and weakest with a simple signature on an executive order. Witness the left’s outrage when Pres. Bush declined full funding for embryonic stem cell research or ordered our diplomats at the UN to not support programs focusing on providing abortions to developing countries
McCain is a supporter of ESCR, so in this regard we have the same tragic possibility no matter which candidate is in the White House.
Henry: FWIW, I never did and never would vote for Bush or McCain. That doesn’t excuse voting for Obama. MM often emphasizes the theme that left-right Democrat-Republican politics is a false dichotomy into which Christians should not be roped. I agree. It would be interesting to see the walk walked, not merely the talk talked.
The best they can come up with is his ability to affect the composition of the US Supreme Court.
I’d say Bush already did this and same with previous appointments made by Republicans. Have we seen an overturn of Roe v. Wade? No.
Zippy
My concern was with others. I have made my own position on McCain and Obama known on here before, too. But I do think people can reason it out differently with prudential wisdom and not be seen as “traitor” if they have a valid reason which doesn’t contradict Catholic morality. But the problem I have is that many times it is pot calling the kettle black (i.e., Bush and ESCR).
I think your basic assumption is wrong. The biggest objection is not that he is pro-abortion. It is twofold. First, he has NO experience and really doesn’t know what he is talking about. He has been caught several times making stuff up that Bush would have been nailed to the cross for but Obama has been given a greeced path.
Second, there is the question of his allegience. He seems to keep turning up not so noble characters in is following that he always has to distance himself from. Now I know you can’t hold someone accountable for who claims to be your supporter, but it seems to happen a little more with Obama and he has trouble denying his association with them. Just a enough to cause a shred of doubt.
Oh and then there is one more thing. Obama is a racist. He is running on race and the democratic party has chosen him based on race. Hillary had long been the party favorite, and she had the popular vote. The Party has decided that they want to clear some kind of guilt from their collective consciences so the are electing a black man. So they abandoned her and have chosen Obama anyway. It is just good old fashioned racism.
All important matters, all glossed over.
Good point. But your post glosses over these issues as well. In your opinion, what are the chances a McCain appointee to the Supreme Court would vote to overturn Roe (with Obama, I take it, the chance of this happening is basically 0%)? Do you think that overturning Roe wouldn’t have a significant effect on the abortion rate? And what do you see as the “limits of criminalization” with respect to abortion? As you say, these are all important matters, but it is not enough to raise the issues. Unless and until one comes to certain conclusions about them, the rest of your argument won’t go through.
MM, I find this reasoning astounding in its purposeful naiveté. Regrettably, this sort of sophistry seems to have infected many Catholics. Explain it all away, so as to sleep easily, and dream the dream of unreality fed by empty glamour.
One need not like the alternatives to recognize that Obama is the most “pro-choice” candidate for president in our history. He is agressively so, in record, in promises, and in rhetoric. Here is my reasoning for voting against him:
Because abortion is homocide, a grave sin with two victims, because it occurs in such large numbers, and because legislators, presidents, governors, and court justices all have a direct and potentially large say in the shape and scope of abortion law and funding – which directly impacts availability and thus our most innocent form of life – my view is that this issue outweighs all others and must be at the very front of candidate consideration.
To start, Obama:
- is co-sponsor of “Freedom of Choice Act”
- wants increased federal funding for providers, including for Planned Parenthood
- wants to end the ban on military bases
- has 100 percent rating (and endorsement) from NARAL and other groups
- opposes the Mexico City policy
- actively opposed and lobbied against a bill to define as a “person” a fully born baby who survived an abortion
- opposes ban on partial-birth abortion
- has said he will not put up justice nominations unless they are committed to Roe v. Wade
It is simply false to suggest a president is far removed from abortion policy, and that extending legal protections to our society’s most vunerable members is not terribly important anyway because government funded health care or anti-poverty programs or whatever else will somewhow reduce the rate.
Laws matter; they can shape behavior. In the quest for a culture of life, abortion must be the greatest and most immediate concern. It is homocide on a mass scale, and our great national shame.
“If the million or so abortions that took place each year could be pinned on the acts of one person (Barack Obama) then, yes, I would join the chorus on the right and say that no conceivable proportionate reason could justify supporting him.”
I doubt it. You’d find your “proportionate reasons” to vote for Obama regardless.
At any rate, we have our proportionate reasons to vote for Barr.
“Even more important, would overturning Roe have much impact on the abortion rate, given that the largest states would surely retain its legality?”
Because within months, about half the states would impose serious restrictions, and perhaps as many as one fourth of the states would ban the practice. This would save countless of lives. Putting abortion back into the realm of the legislative process affords signficantly more ability to the substantial number of pro-life legislators.
“And what are the limits of criminalization in terms of reducing abortion anyway? All important matters, all glossed over.”
Not hardly. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the huge amount of material available from pro-life groups, much of it freely available online.
I find the logic on the power of the PResident and the next Supreme Court Fasinaating. I must say that major Pro- Choice groups in this Country don’t have the same view of the President cannot affect abortion. I wonder how can they be so deceived
We got Justice Stevens and possibily Justice Ginsburg retiring. TO say the President will not have substantial influence on abortion and the law is just folly!!!
It also ignores recent politics!! Do people recall the Republican and Conservative uproar, (Misplaced I think) over the person Bush wanted to put up for the COurt before he got to Roberts!!
This election is critical so so critical. If Obama gets in all hope is gone of getting ROE scaled back or reversed for 30 years if not more. All you have to do is look at the ages of the justices to see that.
Perhaps that is one some people want so the abortion Court issue will not be one that is just so annoyingng because it comes up
MCCain has taken heat over torture , Gitmo. His work on immigration reform is so ignored on here it is incredible.
I see nothing in McCains view that makes him “scary on IRan”. I would suggest that people looks at his entire career in the Senate and his views on military issues.
Anyway if the majority of Catholics and Christians decide that the abortion issue does not trump some of this other stuff well we migh have to pay the consequences. I will have to face it in my own party because perhaps next time it will not be so easy to fight back a Rudy like person getting the nomination.
I would also like to remind people that these appointments that will come up will decide the great next LIFe issue. That is the right to Die.
I would suggest that Obama’s nominees are much more likley to find a Privacy right to the Right to Die than McCain nominees. Already we are seeing sacry stuff in ORegon as to this.
I hope people think their vote through
Zippy: you know that I have nothing but admiration for your principled stance. But there is plenty of room for Catholics to opt out, to vote for McCain, Obama, Barr, Nader…or whoever else seeks the presidency. Personally, I find the whole opt-out appealing, especially since it fits with my innate distrust of the modern nation state and the powers it has usurped…but I am also a realist. Getting stuff done means getting one’s hands dirty. It means getting close to the fire. The key is not to get burned. You may argue that this is impossible to avoid the proportionalist trap, but I wouldn’t necessarily agree– and neither do the bishops, so it seems.
Rather than re-hash O v M over and over again, I have one request.
Would you all please send a letter to the Obama campaign and let them know you are terribly troubled by his complete and unconditional support for the right of a woman to kill her unborn child? I would consider Obama if he hadn’t made it abundantly clear that he doesn’t consider a baby a person untill after birth.
Blackadder: OK, while I obviously can’t assign probabilities here with any confidence, let’s say I think the idea of a McCain appointee tipping the balance on Roe is something like 50-50, perhaps less. I think that criminalizatin would certainly reduce the incidence of abortion, but not eliminate, and not solve the social and economic problems that lead to abortion. But for me, the real weak link in the chain is the effect of a Roe repeal on the incidence of abortion– my gut feeling is that it would be marginal, precisely because the leading abortion states (New York, California etc) would retain its legality. Of course, this is a better place than we are now, as we can start pressing for European-style limits— but this is still quite removed from the actual here-and-now voting decision. Finally, I believe (short of a national ban that I don’t see happening in the forseeable future) that social and economic factors will have the biggest impact on abortion.
Another point to make is that pro-choice advocates have done more to reduce the number of abortions in the US than pro-life advocates. Abstinence only is an abysmal failure, while pro-choice methods have done much better. Full sex education reduces both pregnancies and abortion to a greater degree. So, if the issue is reducing abortions, it would seem Obama is the better choice. McCain is a forced pro-lifer if he wants any political future. He resists any attempts at constitutional amendments and prefers the matter by a state by state decision.
Jeremy: I have faith that Catholics who support Obama, and who have his ear– like Doug Kmiec– are making this point. I hope so.
Sherry:
You’re right to note that Obama will support sex-education that advocates artificial contraception. I assume that’s what you mean by “pro-choice methods”.
MM – Never hurts to send a letter and let them know? In a speech Nader gave, he reminded everyone there that Nixon signed into law the EPA not because he wanted to, but because the people demanded it. Kmiec is one voice. We are many voices. One of my objections to voting for Obama is that I really don’t want my vote to be construed as support for his attitudes towards life.
Write those letters people!
The biggest objection is not that he is pro-abortion. It is twofold. First, he has NO experience and really doesn’t know what he is talking about.
You would prefer a pro-choice president with “experience” over a pro-life president with “no experience” then?
Last I checked, McCain didn’t have an experience being the president of the united states either.
I would be in favor of voting for a candidate who had absolutely no political experience whatsoever. And absolutely no military background too.
Second, there is the question of his allegience.
I would also vote for someone who did not absolutize his allegiance to the united states of america.
Obama is a racist.
Possibly one of the silliest statements ever made at Vox Nova.
If the million or so abortions that took place each year could be pinned on the acts of one person (Barack Obama) then, yes, I would join the chorus on the right and say that no conceivable proportionate reason could justify supporting him. But this is not the case.
What if one of them could be? How many does it take to make it no longer worth the sacrifice in blood? How many acts of waterboarding pinned directly on the President make him unacceptable?
Dan,
Yes, that sly Obama tactic of stealing a presidential nomination is a typical ‘black’ stunt, done once again in your racially inequitable country, is it not? How many times can we be fooled? And that white guilt stuff? What the hell is that all about? You and I do not even really to associate with blacks, right? Then how could we posibvly have done something wrong to them to feel rightly bad about? Foohy!
Some of us in Pennsylvania, we’re not going to take it, I’ll tell you. And what are pledged delegates anyhopw? And who cares if Hillary “won the popular vote” only if you include Michigan, where that trickster took his name of the ballot; exclude the voters in Causus states; and throw in Puerto Rico, which has no voters in the presidential election. I thought the superdelegates would step in, did not you? What are the superdelegates for???!!!!
No, we are not going to take it. We are going to vote for the white man. How cares if our sons and daughters get sacrificed to the gods or war, imperial expansion, and the state-gone-awry? That guy knows what he’s doin’, anyways. He’s been there. In fact, he’s been totured enough to finally admit that waterboarding andthe Army manual are for sissies. This is a new type of war. NEW. NOT LIKE THE OLD> And Iran will get nuclear weapons and use them, certainly. We HAVE to bomb them, HAVE TO,HAVE TO, HAVE TO, I say, no, he says. Even George Will says he says, did you listen to him this weekend, I say? Did you. Did you? Did you!!! Talking to terrorsts, really. How naive fom the inspirational young man. Thetre will be more wars, my friends, more PTSDS, more fatalities!!! Straight talk; straight talk; STRAIGHT TALK!!!
Sherry wroteAnother point to make is that pro-choice advocates have done more to reduce the number of abortions in the US than pro-life advocates. Abstinence only is an abysmal failure, while pro-choice methods have done much better. Full sex education reduces both pregnancies and abortion to a greater degree.
One, many forms of contraception are still abortive, so those are uncounted abortions. Two, pro-life advocates also fund a staff many small and large agencies to promote alternatives and provide services to pregnant women. Three, many abortions involve married and or older women so abstinence only really isn’t the issue.
God Bless
Paul
No, we are not going to take it. We are going to vote for the white man. How cares if our sons and daughters get sacrificed to the gods or war, imperial expansion, and the state-gone-awry? That guy knows what he’s doin’, anyways. He’s been there. In fact, he’s been totured enough to finally admit that waterboarding andthe Army manual are for sissies. This is a new type of war. NEW. NOT LIKE THE OLD> And Iran will get nuclear weapons and use them, certainly. We HAVE to bomb them, HAVE TO,HAVE TO, HAVE TO, I say, no, he says. Even George Will says he says, did you listen to him this weekend, I say? Did you. Did you? Did you!!! Talking to terrorsts, really. How naive fom the inspirational young man. Thetre will be more wars, my friends, more PTSDS, more fatalities!!! Straight talk; straight talk; STRAIGHT TALK!!!
Deep breath, Mark. Deep breath.
And let’s not forget that ESCR is doubly wrong even compared to abortion. (Just as murderning someone simply to get their organs to give to another would be doubly wrong over “simple” murder.) I hate how ESCR gets treated as the neglected step-child of abortion – the potential scale is much more massive, and the issue lacks the seeming conflict of rights (that is, no one has a legal or moral right to the severed body parts of another person; at least yet…) that makes many Americans reluctant to embrace stronger regulation of abortion. Public opinion on ESCR was fairly malleable several years ago until recently, unlike abortion, and I hate to see a loss on a larger and darker front like that.
Anyway, it should be noted that a GOP president faced with a strongly Democratic Senate is only remotely likely to get any vigorous opponent of Roe on a federal appellate court. And then, even if the Supreme Court were to do something (I think it’s unlikely to overturn Roe completely), we still need to remember the sobering lesson of South Dakota. I think people who imagine that Bush appointed Roberts & Alito primarily in terms of Roe are deluding themselves – those appointments were very much about appointing justices who were willing to defer to much of the unitary executive theory.
Catholics who intend to vote for Obama (with, one hopes, at least misgiving on abortion and ESCR) would do well to let him know they expect him to at least begin to end the exclusion of progressive prolife voices from the Democratic party’s table that began with Bill Clinton’s virtual excommunication of Bob Casey. Progressive prolife voices need to continue to come out of the closet.
Oh, and Obama’s a racist. What a hoot! I am just waiting for the whispered rumors that he’s part of the great Jewish conspiracy to keep control over the world…no doubt those will happen in due course. And let’s not forget the black helicopters.
I’ll stay away from the conversations here over abortion–I think it’s pretty much unresolvable in a forum like this. I’ll stick to foreign policy instead.
Just yesterday, I think, Bush continued to indicate that, in regards to the possibility of starting a war with Iran, “All options are on the table.” Obama happens to share that opinion, and restates that phrase constantly, once earning Mike Gravel’s famous rebuke “Who you gonna nuke? Who do you wanna nuke?”
Today, American warplanes launched an unannounced incursion into Pakistani airspace, killing 11 Pakistani soldiers and provoking indignation from the government, who denounced it as a “completely unprovoked and cowardly act.” In combating Taliban and other terrorist groups in the tribal areas of the country, the US cannot hope to be successful without the cooperation of the Pakistani government. And yet we continue to enrage even our allies, and Barack Obama has vocally endorsed actions exactly like this.
Shortly after locking up the Democratic nomination, Obama went before AIPAC and delivered a speech so one-sided in its support of Israeli aggression, so enthusiastic in taunting and threating Iran, so blunt in its denunciation of Palestinian aspirations of statehood (“Jerusalem . . . must remain undivided”) that it made the jaws of even hardened cynics drop.
This is what you support, MM? The case for abstention is as strong as ever.
Just to clarify, it was a spokesman for the Pakistani military who lodged that statement, not a government minister.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7447608.stm
Just to clarify, we all here believe that the ‘seamless garmet’ must at the very least respect the dignity of life from conception untill natural death’, and that the only real argument is over which candidate has the most respect for the dignatiy of the human person? Perhaps instead of bickering, we could be discussing ways to reach out to both candidates to encourage them to adopt policies that encourage all of us to respect the dignity of life from conception untill natural death? We can do that … right?
I have some acquaintances who are active in the pro life movement who claim the seamless garment has been shredded and it’s now just about Abortion. You can’t worry about other issues if you don’t have the right to be born so nothing else is that important, or so the logic goes. BTW these people really hated Card. Bernardin because they believe his seamless garment jargon was similar to heresy.
Seamless Garment = Social Justice = Proabort
., what do you think though?
Dustin: I was disgusted by Obama’s pandering to AIPAC, which forces American public figures to toe the line on positions that are well to the right of the average Israeli even.
. —
I know many people who are pro-life who see that we must be pro-life in all aspects of our thought and culture, and that if you ignore life after the womb, which isn’t hidden, and find excuses to ignore it, it is obvious you will ignore what is also hidden. It’s why life at all stages must be protected. And aided. That which is more apparent has an effect and that which is hidden.
This is why I find many who are so-called pro-life are not; they are anti-abortion alone. They don’t know what it means to be pro-life. Their ability to shrug off death in front of them because it’s not in the womb is a disgrace.
Henry,
Where do you get the idea that, as a society, we “ignore life after the womb”? We certainly do not! Life at all stages after birth IS protected and aided by the law.
Not advocating for a centrally planned health-care system is not “ignoring life after the womb”. Not advocating for a massive federal welfare system is not even close to “ignoring life after the womb.” Even less, could such advocates be considered to “anti-abortion alone”.
Your argument upsets a lot of people because it’s argued in bad faith. There’s very few, if any people in the pro-life movement who aren’t concerned with justice and life outside the womb, and I suspect you know this. If you disagree with their ideas about how to best organize society, say so. But don’t somehow exclude them from being pro-life because they don’t support your preferred social and fiscal policy preferences.
. says:
“I have some acquaintances who are active in the pro life movement who claim the seamless garment has been shredded and it’s now just about Abortion. You can’t worry about other issues if you don’t have the right to be born so nothing else is that important, or so the logic goes. BTW these people really hated Card. Bernardin because they believe his seamless garment jargon was similar to heresy.”
It’s a correct principle that human life is the most important issue, but the fallacy is that conservative Catholics narrow down the meaning of “pro-life” to mean only anti-abortion or at most four or five other issues. This is impossible. In this respect, Cardinal Bernardine was correct, life issues are all connected, they are all related. So the conservatives’ reductive understanding of being pro-life makes their stance on abortion to be arbitrary. It is not pro-life in the Catholic sense. “Catholic” means universal, and conservative catholics don’t respect life in its universality and inter-relatedness.
But this leads to a question: if their position on abortion is, in a sense, arbitrary, then what is the real motivation for it, what is the real principle at work here, if not a genuine Catholic one?
Brian,
I don’t think so-called conservative Catholics deny the life issues are related. They are interested in how they are related.
And how does making a distinction between the abortion issue and other issues (which the Church certainly does) make abortion “arbitrary”? I cannot make sense of that.
I also think it would help if you noted the term ‘pro-life’ can be used in a few different ways – namely, specifically in the context of the anti-abortion movement or expansively, to mean respect for life at all stages. The first usage, the one confined to the anti-abortion cause exclusively, is not invalid. Nor does its use necessarily imply a rejection of the more expansive use of the term.
Zach – The problem is that when you say “Life at all stages after birth IS protected and aided by the law,” you are leaving out that this applies to americans. The united states has had no regard for the lives of non-americans. One million dead Iraqis. One million. There is a double standard.
Not to mention the “expendable” persons within the united states, as I have pointed out many times before.
If a person actively supports and defends policies that destroy human life, applying the term “pro-life” to that person is appalling.
Zach
Brian pointed out the post I was responding to. The people who said the seamless garment of life is wrong and use that to justify ignoring other aspects of life because it wasn’t abortion. In other words, read the conversation; you will note I didn’t bring up a strawman. Indeed, as has been pointed out before, many of the same people who speak out against euthanasia don’t tell the doctors and hospitals how to deal with the costs, and heaven help us if the government is the one who has to pay because “that’s socialized medicine.” And the disregard for life lost in military operations, on either side, demonstrates once again the way many who say “I am pro-life, I am against abortion” are speaking one thing, but show no sense of life as value in the other. Even when one believes a war is justified, disregard for life issues because “it’s war” is a demonstration that the person really, in the core, does not see the value of life as life.
You will note how I was accused of “attacking pro-lifers” while one who is prominently mentioned is the one who is constantly being attack (Kmiec). I am not attacking him, however, I do find the political movement in the US which calls itself pro-life tends to be only on abortion issues (look to how many in the movement fall away when you bring up other aspects of being for life, such as birth control issues, and how they are unwilling to speak out against IVF). I am pro-life. But again the Gospel of Life didn’t stop with “abortion is wrong” and leave it at that. Read what JPII said. It’s an extensive teaching.
Michael,
You are rightly concerned about the (in)justice of the Iraq war. I don’t think that it follows that because we have engaged in a unjust war (one which for full disclosure I do not and have not supported), we have “no regard for the lives of non-Americans”. But it’s difficult to argue against sweeping generalizations.
I don’t really know what to make of your claim that somehow the government thinks certain persons are expendable, unless you mean unborn children.
When you write,
,you mean to impugn those who support the war in iraq and call themselves pro-life because they oppose abortion. You must understand that people who support the Iraq war believe themselves to be supporting the greater course of justice, and as such, see themselves as being pro-life. You’re free to dispute that, but at least recognize their good intentions. Not everyone is so dogmatically certain about the illicitness of the iraq war.
Henry,
I read the conversation, and I’m responded to the claims you made at my site and here. I don’t think your response makes any sense, especially this:
You know what a person really believes “in the core”? You really claim to know these peoples consciences?
I suppose if you really think Catholic Americans can’t be pro-life without being against the war in Iraq, or pacifist, you’re free to think so. It’s actually not of that much consequence – at the end of the day it basically amounts to an insult.
I don’t really know what to make of your claim that somehow the government thinks certain persons are expendable, unless you mean unborn children.
I think the u.s. government, and most americans, think that certain classes, races, etc. of people are expendable. This includes the poor, the “non-white,” foreigners, whoever is considered “the enemy” this week, prisoners, the elderly, the dying, and of course, the unborn.
…you mean to impugn those who support the war in iraq and call themselves pro-life because they oppose abortion.
Their opposition to abortion has nothing to do with it. If they supported a war like the war in Iraq, use of the term “pro-life” reduces that term to meaninglessness.
You’re free to dispute that, but at least recognize their good intentions. Not everyone is so dogmatically certain about the illicitness of the iraq war.
Well, not everyone is “so dogmatically certain” about the evil of abortion. What about their “good intentions”?
It’s actually not of that much consequence – at the end of the day it basically amounts to an insult.
I think it’s possible for a Catholic to be a non-absolutist pacifist and remain “pro-life.” But the war on Iraq was so clearly wrong from the beginning it’s hard to see how anyone who supported it could be called “pro-life.”
Likewise, supporting the death penalty disqualifies one from being “pro-life.”
It’s not meant as an insult, but rather an insistence that we take our terms seriously in matters of life and death. “Pro-lifers” misuse the word pro-life and it’s a disgrace. If you find it insulting, I don’t know what to tell you. It’s hardly as insulting as having a bomb dropped on your house and family, is it? And it’s no more insulting than calling pro-abortion folks “anti-life” as “pro-life” people do.
You’re free to dispute that, but at least recognize their good intentions. Not everyone is so dogmatically certain about the illicitness of the iraq war.
Well, not everyone is “so dogmatically certain” about the evil of abortion. What about their “good intentions”?
I may add — and this will probably sound scandalous to you — that I am more sympathetic to the “good intentions” of a woman who has an abortion than I am to the “good intentions” of those who justify war.
It may be hard to see, but it’s not impossible to see.
This is another contentious claim. I’d qualify it by saying “enthusiastic support” for the death penalty would probably disqualify someone from being pro-life. For what it’s worth, I agree with Avery Cardinal Dulles‘ take on the Church’s teaching.
I didn’t mean to say that I find your concern with the term insulting, only that you must intend it as an insult because you mean nothing by it but someone who disagrees with your understanding of the Catholic faith.
As to my sympathies –
I am very sympathetic to the intentions of a woman considering an abortion, indeed, probably more sympathetic than I would be to someone who tried to justify a war I thought unjust. A woman in that circumstance needs all the love and support she can get. Someone justifying an unjust war just needs a bit of education:)
But this brings out a clear distinction between war and abortion. With respect to the act of the war in Iraq, the morality is not as clear as you would have it. With respect to the act of abortion, the morality is absolutely clear and there is and can be no question about it. We can question/explore the possible legitimacy of the war in Iraq, because it may in fact be just. Not so with abortion.
Again, I must repeat: I do not support the war in Iraq – I’m only concerned about preserving the hierarchy of teaching in Catholic moral thought.
Looks like I opened quite a can of worms with my last post. To clarify, I do not agree with the shredded seamless garment theory. Also I refer to this particular group of prolifers as acquaintances (as opposed to friends) because most of them seemed highly authoritative, bitter (dare I use the word?) and controlling to the point of intimidation, not qualities I value in a friendship. They shared a certainty that Catholics are obligated to suspend all other concerns until abortion has been eradicated, and their bashing of the late Card. Bernardin shocked and disgusted me. I happen to have admired the man as did millions of other people. Had I expressed my thoughts to this particular group, it would have sent them over the edge. I now work with Mother & Unborn Baby Care where the atmosphere is very different.
“We got Justice Stevens and possibily Justice Ginsburg retiring”
That would be Justice Stevens, a Republican appointee and Justice Gingsburg, for whom Senator McCain recently said “I voted for her because she was qualified.”