Mike passed this email and article to me that he received from a Catholic/Pro-Life professor of his from Holy Cross. I'm so entirely sick of all the election coverage, yet I keep watching. Anyway, I'm passing it on to you all to get opinions, as I can't seem to make up my mind between not voting at all, voting Mccain, or *gasp* giving Obama some thought.
Here it is:
Both John McCain and the Democrats are giving Catholics reasons to reconsider which party can and will do more to reduce the number of abortions in America.
When on August 11, McCain told the Weekly Standard that he welcomed pro-choice Republicans, he articulated openly what has been obvious for some time: the GOP uses the issue to get votes, but will not outlaw abortion.
No less an expert than Prof. Douglas Kmiec, once professor of law at Catholic University, and a former Reagan Administration lawyer who wrote briefs for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, now says the Democrats have a stronger approach to reducing abortions.
When on August 11, McCain told the Weekly Standard that he welcomed pro-choice Republicans, he articulated openly what has been obvious for some time: the GOP uses the issue to get votes, but will not outlaw abortion.
No less an expert than Prof. Douglas Kmiec, once professor of law at Catholic University, and a former Reagan Administration lawyer who wrote briefs for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, now says the Democrats have a stronger approach to reducing abortions.
Link to the article:
12 comments:
Long post coming, sorry!
You're right to be suspicious about being manipulated on this issue but don't for a minute think that an Obama administration is going to be the means that moderates the Democrat party on this issue. I think Obama veils very progressively liberal opinions (based on his voting record) with moderate language. And I haven’t seen anything to suggest that the Democrat party wants to change on this issue.
In fact, I think that people who use our Christian obligation to the poor as a means of baptizing the Democrat party and their supposedly beneficial social policies are trying much harder to manipulate Catholics.
“Yeah, I mean abortion is not great (personally I think it’s wrong but who am I to say) but if we just raise taxes on the top one tenth of the one percent of the greediest of the rich we'll have enough money to create a happy world filled with rainbow tapestries, Bob Marley music and shabby chic fashions where no one needs (emphasis on needs) an abortion because the government's already given you everything you need, yeah!! Woo hoo!! Who needs a hug.”
If Supreme Court justices didn’t make a difference, what’s with all this ballyhoo from pro-abortion groups in opposition to Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito? If abortion were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States at a time when the whole world is trending to the opposite extreme, the ripple effects of it (both symbolically and practically) would be inestimably significant. Legislation could be passed without fear of it being struck down, local judges with similar opinions could use it as precedent and if a pro-life Vice-Presidential candidate can create a groundswell of pro-life energy and activism, how much more would that ruling – people would demand the protection of life in new ways.
I would also disagree that all Republican Presidents ever did on this issue was appoint indifferent justices. Eliminating international funding of abortions, protecting religion in the public sphere,
I think Kmiec’s line of reasoning is so intellectually nuanced as to be kind of whacky. What abolitionist in the 1850s would have voted Democrat because, even though they own slaves, Democrats have moral qualms about it and have a better long-term response to the economic issues that necessitate manual labor? It is a highly educated grandiose example of the “ends justifying the means”.
If a candidate supports the legality of abortion on any level pardon me if I have a very hard time believing that they have any interest in policies that will systemically limit them. None of these positions from Obama are new – healthcare reform, tax reform, less money to defense. Show me one Democrat president, governor or say community organizer whose policies ever did anything to limit abortions. Anywhere. They couldn’t. They would be politically.. um..unviable.
Obama supported legislation while in the Illinois state legislature that allows doctors to kill infants that survive botched abortions. I don’t think Pain/McCain is “a second best answer” to that. I hear you though, for sure. Personally, if it were McCain/Giuliani or McCain/Lieberman, I probably wouldn’t have voted because I would not have trusted McCain’s commitment on this issue.
And, if I may, transcend the politics of division?? Please. What does that even mean? For me, I am happily divided from progressive liberals on a whole host of subjects. Abortion is the first and most important.
Luca lacks Executive experience.
Oh, and btw.
There need be no Luca to vote for in Obama's world.
He's disposable.
And on a more basic note... did I miss something? What it was exactly that Barry was going to do to reduce abortions?
This article is a great example of the "Liberals are the good guys and that makes up for the fact that they won't protect the unborn, as does the fact that Republican are war-mongering, racist, rich meanies out of touch of the needs of the ordinary citizen" mentality that swaps vagueries for facts. And gets it wrong, even at that.
Kmiec has a hard on for Barry. Period. And like so many Catholics who want to vote for pro-choice Democrats b/c of their leftist leanings, he's trying to justify himself.
But to call Barry humble and say that his cowardly avoidance of the question of human life - one that the author himself said any geneticist could clear up - lacks guile and political calculation?
[delete judgey last sentence]
"If it’s a choice between giving a boost to the work of my fellow parishioners who week after week in thinly-funded, crisis pregnancy centers, open their minds and their hearts and often their homes to pregnant women (and Obama has spoken approvingly of faith-based efforts) and a Supreme Court Justice to be named later who may or may not toss the issue back to the states, I think I know which course is more effectively choosing life."
What? When was this the choice? When did Obama support crisis prego centers? When did McCain not?
Translation: Liberals love people. Republicans are evil. Forget the facts.
"As anyone who's ever had a conversation with a pregnant woman thinking about abortion knows, good, evenhanded information and genuine empathy and love save more children than hypothetical legal limits – which, as best as I can tell, have saved: well, zero."
What? So b/c the Obama brand is one of "hope" "transcendence" and "dialogue" (all bullshit, mind you) this will trickle down somehow into a culture that speaks kindly and promotes information for pregnant women?
And again, McCain and/or Republicans do the opposite?
[again, delete judgey last sentence.]
Add: I would be stunned if most of the folks who work in crisis prego centers, who speak this love, give this information, and sacrifice of themselves are voting for Barry.
I just don't get this article at all, unless you're already an Obamaphile who believes he'll deliver us to a higher plane of hope and love.
I have a comment to make on this as well. Unfortunately, I haven't time now to do it justice. Off to Maureen's now, work tomorrow and then off to NY for a few days.
But when I return...
frank and annie, thank you for writing what i couldn't. as i read the article i found myself doing just what i now think kmiec is doing - rationalizing voting for obama. watching his speech, it's hard not to be swept up in the atmosphere and the hope for "change," and that scares me a bit. i found the part about how obama supports faith groups to be funny, because is that supposed to mean that mccain opposes them? who would ever oppose a faith group.. it's ridiculous.
i've also been juggling with the idea of being labled a "one-issue voter" and have finally come to terms with it. it dawned on me the other week, and i have to say i was quite excited. it's not that i don't care about anything else, it's just that it all comes second. i'm not going to elaborate more, because i'm preaching to the choir here, i'm just excited that i can now defend my position and not fumble around with it.
Good for you, Lisette!
In my opinion, if an individual supports abortion - on any level - then he or she simply has nothing else to say to me. In essence, they've said it all.
First, I back everything Annie and Frank have said - they have covered all my bases.
I will only add that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a "one-issue"voter when the vote means defending the sanctity and dignity of human life. There is a clear hierarchy of issues and the preservation of the most innocent of life is clearly way, way, way at the top.
It says devastating things if a culture considers the killing of the unborn acceptable. Devastating.
(And EVERYONE knows that is what abortion is and EVERYONE who says otherwise is either a liar, a dissembler, or an purposely ignorant because they don't want to enter the fray. Period.)
If the foundation of your house is about to give way, you put all your resources to fixing it. You don't debate on whether you should, instead, patch the roof, get new storm windows, or redo the carpeting.
The foundations are crumbling, fast, fast, fast.
And, Lisette, I understand being caught up in a desire for change. Who doesn't want fresh air. But the best way not to be caught up by sheer fluff and good marketing - which is all Obama is) is to take time away and figure out the issues. I didn't do that until a few years ago when I moved to NYC and had to figure out how to defend my beliefs in this city.
This election seems to be leading you to that same point of desperation and that is great!
Last, I was seriously considering not voting if McCain picked Lieberman or someone of his ilk. Palin is a game changer, it's worth it to me now.
I'm not sure if anyone is viewing this post any longer or it's comments, but I have finally had time to really look into it. I had to stop reading after the first page because I thought I might vomit.
Not a word of it made sense. None of it sounded like it was remotely grounded in logic. Instead I felt as if I were listening to someone justify a decision in the 11th hour because they had a gun to their head. (the decision to back Obama)
"Openly, he posited that he thought it is “very hard to know . . . when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don't presume to know the answer to that question.”
There’s some humility in this answer"
HUMILITY??? I guess I underestimated how stupid people can be when they allow themselves to interpret avoidance and bullshit as humility. That had to be the dumbest response I have ever heard. To mirror Clare, I find it laughable to believe that a presumably educated adult can argue whether life starts at conception. Regardless of whether a person wants to debate the undebateable existence of a soul in a human being, it is black and white science that life starts at conception. There is no middle ground. It's not what your opinion is, it's fact, and I am so sick of hearing people lean on that excuse. The question shouldn't be "When does life begin (and therefore, how big is our window to kill before we have to feel guilt)" but "What is your justification for murder"
Sorry to have an angry rant, but this article enfuriated me. Period.
Post a Comment