A veritable regiment of Catholic liberals have been campaigning on-line for Catholic pro-lifers to understand their position that just because they are "pro-choice," or oppose a government ban on abortion, doesn't make them "pro-abortion."
They tell us that they believe that abortion cannot be ended by outlawing it. That instead, they believe that we must win "hearts and minds," that abortion must be fought by keeping it legal and dissuading those in the position of seeking abortions.
If this describes you, I've good news for you: I understand your position.
You're lying.
It's possible that you're lying to yourselves. But you are certainly lying to the rest of us.
You would never consider being "pro-choice" on torture. You would not tolerate someone who was "pro-choice" on racial discrimination. You do not honor those (like Stephen Douglas) who were "pro-choice" on slavery. You do not repect those who are "pro-choice" about unjsut war. You don't believe in allowing states to be "pro-choice" on capital punishment.
You're certainly not "pro-choice" regarding rape, murder, kidnapping, wife-beating, carjacking, lynching of blacks or gays, political graft, corporate corruption, or bank robbery.
None of those things are tolerable in a free society, and you support and agree with the laws that forbid them. If I were to advocate the legalization of any of those things, you would rightly think me a supporter of them.
But abortion? You're comfortable with abortion. You're quite content that abortion is championed by your political heroes. It gives you not even the slightest pause. You've spent the last six months arguing whether Hillary Clinton was better than Barack Obama or vice versa, without the slightest consideration that they are the two most prominent and ardent supporters of the killing of innocents in the world today. You don't give a shit about that.
Nearly 50 million innocents have been lost to abortion in the U.S., and your primary effort as Catholics is to do your utmost to distract Catholics from their efforts to fight abortion. You don't pray rosaries at abortion clinics, you don't write about the evils of abortion in your columns, blogs and websites, and you certainly don't trouble yourself to vote against candidates who support abortion rights. No, you tell people that they cannot oppose abortion in their way, but only in your way. And what's your way of opposing abortion? Doing nothing other than telling pro-lifers not to fight abortion, as though nothing can be done at all unless everyone adopts your ineffectual methods.
As Archbishop Naumann recently wrote, if every Catholic Democrat in America objected to the pro-abortion plank in the Democratic Party platform, it would change tomorrow.
But there is no credible effort in the Democratic Party to eliminate the pro-abortion plank.
You pretend to care about something called "reducing the number of abortions", but you intentionally pretend that abortion is caused by poverty (as though rich people don't seek abortions), or a lack of sex education (as though contraceptive use prevents abortion). And you ignore the fact that the unborn human life is a human, with human dignity, with human rights, and that to be content to only "reduce the number" of instances in which their lives are cruelly snuffed out is to ignore and even deny their personhood.
That you would not take such a tack with any other evil, betrays your willful support for abortion -- for the burning with acid, for the chopping up and removal of fetuses piecemeal, for suctioning brains out of skulls of almost-born babies, and even for withholding medical care for the survivors of abortion.
There is no proportionate reason to support the pro-abortion candidates put forth by the Democratic Party. You have swallowed abortion whole, digested it, and made it part of your being.
Perhaps you say that you don't support Obama because of his position on abortion, but in spite of it. And that makes it OK. Bullshit. Obama's position on abortion would repel anyone who was taught by the Church about human dignity, who had not made themselves a willing participant in the culture of death.
And then you lie to the world that you are a good and faithful Catholic. You may even believe your lies yourself. But I do not. And I cannot imagine that Our Lord will be fooled come the day of your judgment.
I pray you repent before it's too late for you.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Well said Paul. Very well said. Amen!
You know who is lying about abortion? The Republican Party, that’s who! They can read the polls just as well as anybody and they are well aware that 65% of the American voting public thinks that abortion should be legal and, despite what they say about it, they will never buck a huge majority like that and actually do anything about abortion. For them it’s just a matter of picking up a lot of working class Catholic voters on the cheap. They’ve had thirty-five years to do something, they’ve appointed ten of the last twelve Supreme Court justices, and they haven’t done anything to actually reduce or end abortion.
With a better than 2/3 majority of voters you can be sure that abortion will be legal no matter who you vote for.
You can be sure if you vote Republican, however, that you will get a war. They’ve kept that anti-life promise!
"With a better than 2/3 majority of voters you can be sure that abortion will be legal no matter who you vote for."
Actually your statistic is hogwash. Most Americans oppose mostabortions.
>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html
Under the Bush administration a partial birth abortion ban is now the law of the land, the first ban on an abortion procedure to be uheld by the Supreme Court since Roe. The legality of abortion hangs by a thread in the Supreme Court. The next few Supreme Court nominees are crucial. It will make a major difference if these appointments are made by Obama, a supporter of the Freedom of Choice Act which would codify Roe into Federal staturory law, or McCain, an opponent of abortion.
Their intentions may be thoroughly prochoice, but most of what they do will end up having a proabortion effect.
So, what do we, as prolifers do?
We need to respect the fact that as distinct from the movers and shakers of the abortion lobby, they really do mean well. But they are being deceived.
Imagine if you were adamantly trying to make a problem go away -- say, poisoning deaths among toddlers. You had been taught that the biggest cause of toddler poisoning deaths was failure to teach toddlers to properly identify poison. Thus, toddlers who, as toddlers inevitably will do, encounter poison, ingest it. You work against locking up poisons and putting tehm out of reach because you've been taught that this makes the kids unable to identify poison and makes them believe that all substances are safe to ingest.
You work hard on toddler-education programs. You want there to be opportunities for all toddlers to encounter and identify poisons, under adult supervision, so that when they encounter them while mom's back is turned, they will remember that it is poison and won't ingest it.
You are totally convinced this is the way to go. You think that people who lock up poisons or put them out of reach are lazy, and are the core cause of the needless toddler poisoning deaths.
Now, imagine that the people locking up the poisons are always accusing you of hating toddlers and wanting them to die of poisoning.
How would you cope with learning that you'd contributed unwittingly to the deaths of thousands of toddlers with your misguided efforts? Might not the truth be so painful that you'd fight tooth and nail to cling to your belief that those deaths were caused by your opponents, who want to keep toddlers ignorant and unable to make safe choices?
That's what we're dealing with, with a lot of rank-and-file prochoicers. They are convinced to the core that they are supporting the REDUCTION of abortion, and the ELIMINATION of maternal abortion mortality. And, given the MSM's proabortion slant, it's almost impossible for them to encounter evidence that they're wrong from sources that they don't think are evil and trying to kill women.
We need to recognize their good intentions while gently getting them to see the disasterous results.
I am 100% with you. The pro-aborts are full of crap.
Look, I recognize that we can't legislate away all sin. I would maintain that actions like sodomy should be legal. But when you're talking about abortion, you are talking about the taking of an innocent human life. At a bare minimum the state exists to protect life. If the state sanctifies, by its laws, the taking of human life, then what is the purpose of the state? When people say they are pro "choice," the choice they are upholding is the choice to destroy life. That needs to be made clear in the minds of all who are as yet unpersuaded.
Granny, you make a good analogy, but I disagree with your application of it.
In your example, as with abortion, the only way to presume the good intentions of the "pro-choice" crowd is to also presume their extreme stupidity.
These aren't stupid people. As the Dutchman's comment above makes clear, these are people who are willing to embrace evil and they refuse to stand against it. They excuse this by claiming to fear war so much they'll even make peace with abortion. They have made a negotiated peace on what the Holy Father has called a non-negotiable issue.
And their only "pro-life" activity is to insist that abortion is not an important enough issue to seriously consider in deciding for whom to vote.
God may forgive them -- but I highly doubt it. I never will.
dutchman:
Just because something's "popular" doesn't make it right.
Abortion is wrong and should be outlawed.
Period.
Grannygrumps, if they truly work to help Project Gabriel or something equivalent, then it's possible they are serious. Otherwise, it's more likely they just don't think this issue is important enough.
Amy, Dutchman's point was that abolishing abortion is politically impossible because 65% of the population supports it. Since it's political suicide, neither party will do it so it's better to vote based on other issues where you can make a difference. He does not argue morality here, but facts.
The logic is similar to you voting for a candidate who would outlaw most abortions, but allow those that are necessary to save the life of the mother(1). You see such abortions as evil, but you vote for the issue where you can make a difference, abortion for healthy pregnancies.
(1) I don't want to get into the debate whether with modern medicine such cases actually exist. Politicians are not competent to make that judgment, so they could put it into law even if it never happens.
Ori, The Dutchman is not arguing facts, he's arguing fictions, excuses, and slanders.
The logic is similar to you voting for a candidate who would outlaw most abortions, but allow those that are necessary to save the life of the mother
This is in fact our situation, faced with a candidate who would make it his first priority to guarantee abortion rights, and a candidate who would restrict, but not abolish abortion, our preference should be for the one who would restrict abortion.
But many liberal Catholics use McCain's lack of desire to abolish abortion as an excuse to support the actively pro-abortion candidate.
I don't want to get into the debate whether with modern medicine such cases actually exist. Politicians are not competent to make that judgment, so they could put it into law even if it never happens.
Again, you're wrong on this point. Roe includes an exception for the life or health of the mother, and the courts have interpreted this to include mental health. In practice, this means that human lives are taken to prevent mild and temporary depression.
Paul,
This post was such a great mix of passion and reasoning that I find myself envious as a blogger! I have had Catholics who call themselves pro-choice tell me that they don't judge unborn life to have the same "moral value" as born life. They see it as human life - so it's somewhat important - but it's not as important as fully born human life (a version of Roe v. Wade's statement that a fetus is the potential for human life, but not actually human life). Therefore the war is a worse evil than abortion because war kills full human beings while abortion kills almost humans.
The fact is that war can be justified in some cases and that a just war does not maliciously target non-combatants. You can argue whether we had a just cause to go into Iraq and whether staying there is in Iraq's best interest. However, you also have to acknowledge that our army does a darn nice job fighting its wars justly (whigian conspiracy theories aside).
Abortion is a malicious attack against innocent life. To say it should be legal but that we should work to change hearts is legalizing murder and telling people not to do it.
Jeff Arrowood
www.fromtheabbey.com
Promoting the Joy of the Truth to Catholics
I was in the navy, and I was near Baghdad, Sept. 2004-Mar. '05. I think that abortion is worse than the war. About 4,000 Americans died, in Iraq, within the past five years, but about 4,000 American babies are aborted, each day.
Phil Collins
Ori, The Dutchman is not arguing facts, he's arguing fictions, excuses, and slanders.
I should have said "arguing what the facts are". I did not mean to imply that I think what he told us is actually true. Merely that he debated the facts, so the proper course of action is to counter with a factual argument as Donald R. McClarey did.
Again, you're wrong on this point. Roe includes an exception for the life or health of the mother, and the courts have interpreted this to include mental health. In practice, this means that human lives are taken to prevent mild and temporary depression.
That was precisely the point I didn't want to get into because it would confuse what I was trying to say about what could refute The Dutchman's argument.
For the argument to work I don't need save the life/health of the mother abortions to exist. I merely need candidates who believe the existence of such abortions, or who do not consider themselves competent to pronounce that such abortions do not exist.
I reread my comment from 9:28 AM and I apologize. I wrote carelessly and I did imply I agree with what The Dutchman claimed as facts. I do not. I honestly meant to write about how to effectively refute him rather than to argue he is correct.
For the record, I believe most abortions will be outlawed in the US in a few decades. This is based mostly on an assessment of the demographics.
I see "pro-choice" as a position on the legality of abortion and "pro-abortion" as a position on the morality of abortion, and I see both positions as wrong.
On the torture issue, I would (and have) described advocates for using torture as pro-choice on the matter. Krauthammer and others argue that the president should have the legal authority to torture in certain circumstances.
I've said it before, I'll say it again, saying I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion is sophistry pure & simple, They are the same thing. If not, why do most dictionaries use the same definition for both words?
I do not doubt the good intentions of the average pro-choicer. I've known too many good people over the years who were simply blind on this issue. And as I've alluded before, thanks largely to my upbringing in a left-wing household, much to my discredit, I used to be one.
And for what it's worth, I don't think that re-criminalizing abortion would have a significant immediate effect on the number of abortions performed in the U.S. The "right to choose" is too firmly ingrained into the hearts and minds of many doctors, of many women, and of many men. Abortions would decrease a bit, but mostly they'd be done surreptitiously (and I don't mean the old "back alley" bit - but they would use techniques that would be difficult to trace back to the doctor).
*That*, in my judgment, is where the "battle for hearts and minds" comes in. The legal battle is not the whole war. Neither is the "hearts and minds" battle the whole war. We have to be fighting on both fronts.
I can understand how an atheist, a secularist, a Protestant, or any number of other people can support someone as pro-abortion as Obama. I still cannot wrap my brain around Catholics who do. Not with the Church's teaching being so plain. I just don't get it.
Mr. McClarey:
• My figures are supported by the polling of the Pew Research Center which gives a figure of 67% believing that abortion should be “generally available.”
http://people-press.org/report/283/pragmatic-americans-liberal-and-conservative-on-social-issues
Your link gives 57% support for abortion, lower, yet still an overwhelming majority.
• The partial birth abortion ban is a fraud that hasn’t stopped anyone from getting an abortion. It is just smoke and mirrors to ban a method of abortion but not a type of abortion. Sort of like banning murder with a pistol while allowing it with a rifle. In point of face, the only actual thing the Republicans have passed against abortion is the Hyde Amendment, and that was back in 1976!
Paul & Amy: Yes, abortion is wrong and should be banned. Voting for the Republicans will not make that goal one inch closer. Ori seems to understand my position even if he doesn’t agree with it.
Here’s my take on it:
— Vote Republican and get war, abortion, and a lot of talk against abortion.
— Vote Democratic and get abortion without the war or the empty talk.
http://festungarnulfinger.blogspot.com/2008/01/we-need-different-kind-of-pro-life-vote.html
Yes, abortion is wrong and should be banned. Voting for the Republicans will not make that goal one inch closer.
Dutchman, you're full of shit.
Republicans have already brought that goal closer.
Obama will abolish the Mexico City Policy, repeal the Hyde Amendment, federally fund abortion, overturn all abortion restrictions at any level, and generally guarantee an increase in abortion. These are his campaign promises! A vote for Obama is a vote for change, not a vote for the status quo.
McCain has promised to build on the achievement of his predecessor, who reinstated the Mexico City policy, fought to protect the Hyde Amendment, and appointed justices to the Supreme Court who were instrumental in banning partial birth abortion.
Because of the GOP, there are fewer options for abortion.
Both parties will tell you this.
Your eagerness to support the pro-abortion candidate betrays your own embrace of the abortion ethic.
"My figures are supported by the polling of the Pew Research Center which gives a figure of 67% believing that abortion should be “generally available.”
Actually the Pew Research Center data also finds that most Americans oppose most abortions:
"A July survey (2005) by the Pew Research Center found slightly more than a third (35%) saying that abortion should be "generally available to those who want it:" 23% believe it should be available under "stricter limits;" 31% say abortion should be against the law except in cases of rape, incest and to save the woman's life; and 9% say abortion should not be permitted at all."
http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=119
"The partial birth abortion ban is a fraud that hasn’t stopped anyone from getting an abortion. It is just smoke and mirrors to ban a method of abortion but not a type of abortion."
You are quite wrong. The Pro-aborts fought it tooth and nail because it is a harbinger of things to come. As Justice Ginsburg note in her dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart:
"Though today’s opinion does not go so far as to discard Roe or Casey, the Court, differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier invocations of “the rule of law” and the “principles of stare decisis.” Congress imposed a ban despite our clear prior holdings that the State cannot proscribe an abortion procedure when its use is necessary to protect a woman’s health. See supra, at 7, n. 4. Although Congress’ findings could not withstand the crucible of trial, the Court defers to the legislative override of our Constitution-based rulings. See supra, at 7–9. A decision so at odds with our jurisprudence should not have staying power.
In sum, the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational. The Court’s defense of the statute provides no saving explanation. In candor, the Act, and the Court’s defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court—and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women’s lives. See supra, at 3, n. 2; supra, at 7, n. 4. When “a statute burdens constitutional rights and all that can be said on its behalf is that it is the vehicle that legislators have chosen for expressing their hostility to those rights, the burden is undue.” Stenberg, 530 U. S., at 952 (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (quoting Hope Clinic v. Ryan, 195 F. 3d 857, 881 (CA7 1999) (Posner, C. J., dissenting))."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZD.html
Vote for Obama if you wish, but do not kid yourself that it does not make a big difference in the struggle against abortion.
Just about the only thing I can think of that Bush actually did for the pro-life voters was reinstate the Mexico City Policy, and he only did that because it’s just about a non-issue with everyone but the most involved. Only a tiny fragment of radical feminists probably cared enough to object, so it’s not as if he were alienating vast numbers of potential voters. Other than that, the difference between the Clinton record and the Bush record is practically nil.
Abortions declined significantly under Clinton, but only marginally under Bush, and you could make the case that the anti-working-class economic policies of the Republicans accounted for many women feeling that they “couldn’t afford to have the baby.”
Ten of the last twelve Supreme Court justices are Republican appointees, so why is it that only two of them are reliably pro-life?
The partial birth ban only makes doctors use a different method of third trimester abortion; it doesn’t actually stop them from performing them. It has probably not prevented even one abortion, though it might have caused medical complications for women who had other, more dangerous, procedures.
Do you read the Wanderer? Virtually every article about McCain concedes that he is not nearly as pro-life as Bush — and Bush’s record is one of no accomplishment whatsoever.
I’m not eager to support a pro-abortion candidate, but I recognize the political realities. Abortion is not going to go away anytime soon, though maybe we can end this immoral war.
Have you read my blog? There are probably a dozen posts there against abortion. I challenge you to find any post that does not conform to Catholic moral teaching.
“Full of shit?” Is that the way Christians talk to each other?
And why did you go and poison my Catholic Dads Blog post on the Holy Rosary with your nasty insinuation that I was “defending abortion rights?” Isn’t calumny a sin?
Abortions declined significantly under Clinton, but only marginally under Bush, and you could make the case that the anti-working-class economic policies of the Republicans accounted for many women feeling that they “couldn’t afford to have the baby.”
Actually under President Bush the abortion rate in this country has fallen to its lowest point in 30 years.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-01-16-abortion-rates_N.htm
"It has probably not prevented even one abortion, though it might have caused medical complications for women who had other, more dangerous, procedures."
There is no medical necessity for killing a child in the third trimester in order to preserve the life or health of the mother. You have swallowed a pro-abort red herring.
You're digging yourself in deeper, Dutchman. It looks as though you want these errors (or are they lies?) to be true, so that you can have an alibi for yourself for voting for more abortions in America.
“Full of shit?” Is that the way Christians talk to each other?
Haven't you heard of St. Jerome?
And why did you go and poison my Catholic Dads Blog post on the Holy Rosary with your nasty insinuation that I was “defending abortion rights?” Isn’t calumny a sin?
Calumny? I asked a question. Turns out the answer was yes.
No I haven't read your blog, but if it contains posts along the lines of your comments here, then it certainly contravenes Catholic moral teaching, which calls upon us to vote against candidates who support abortion.
Abortions declined significantly under Clinton, but only marginally under Bush
I've seen this data. It all depends on whether you're counting the number of total abortions (regardless of the number of pregnancies) or the percentage of pregnancies that ended in abortion. If there are fewer abortions and fewer pregnancies, the number of abortions is lower but the RATE is not necessarily lower. THAT'S where Bush has the better number. It's called lying with numbers.
That is, it's called lying with numbers to say that "abortions declined significantly under Clinton, but only marginally under Bush."
Paul said: “You're digging yourself in deeper, Dutchman. It looks as though you want these errors (or are they lies?) to be true, so that you can have an alibi for yourself for voting for more abortions in America.”
I was about ready to drop this, because the discussion is turning into name calling, but now that I’ve been called a liar I think I need to defend myself against the way my statements are being misrepresented and distorted.
Donald R. McClarey said: “Pew Research Center data also finds that most Americans oppose most abortions.” and then goes on to cite figures showing that only 35% of the public believes that abortion should be unlimited. 23% favor “stricter limits.”
But these limits are undefined. If these limits were against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortion (which have virtually no support and probably could be banned) then this would not in any way constitute “most abortions.” Breakdowns by trimester usually show about a 2/3 majority for legal access to first trimester abortion and virtually no support for late term abortions.
The same poll also shows that only 29% of Americans think that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=119
Donald R. McClarey said: “The Pro-aborts fought it (the partial birth abortion ban) tooth and nail because it is a harbinger of things to come.”
Perhaps it is a “harbinger,” but it is not a real achievement. My main point stands: the ban was only on one method of third trimester abortion and did nothing to actually prevent even one abortion, as many methods remain legal.
Donald R. McClarey said: “Actually under President Bush the abortion rate in this country has fallen to its lowest point in 30 years.”
This in no way contradicts what I said. If abortions declined quickly under Clinton and then continued to decline more slowly under Bush, then of course the number would be the lowest ever! Furthermore, I spoke of the number, not the rate.
Donald R. McClarey said: “There is no medical necessity for killing a child in the third trimester in order to preserve the life or health of the mother. You have swallowed a pro-abort red herring.”
My point was not that there was or was not a medical necessity for third trimester abortion, rather that the partial birth ban shifted the procedure from that method to other methods that are supposed to be riskier. These women will continue having third trimester abortions as long as some method is legal and banning one particular method is not going to stop them.
Literacy-chic said: “That is, it's called lying with numbers to say that "abortions declined significantly under Clinton, but only marginally under Bush."”
Here are the facts:
Between 1992 and 2000, the number of abortions dropped from 1,359,437 to 861,343, a total decline of 37% or about 4.6% per year.
Between 2000 and 2004 (the last year with complete statistics) the number of abortions dropped from 861,343 to 839,226, a total decline of 3% or about three quarters of a percentage point per year.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html
These are the total numbers of the babies killed. I don’t see why the rate of baby killing should matter, since each one died one at a time, each one represents a soul that is lost to God, each one is a tragedy.
(*sigh*) Look... Dutchman... I'll assume, for now, that you're speaking in earnest, and that you're at least open to hearing other points of view. I hope those assumptions aren't wrong...
Forgive the stern words, but: you've swallowed a heterodox, "politically liberal" line of bunk, when you place the Iraq War on the same playing field as (much less give it parity with) abortion. No one can coherently argue that 50 million *deliberately targeted* innocent lives being murdered (let that word sink in) in the womb is in any way comparable to the tens of thousands (or even hundreds of thousands, if you use the outrageously liberal estimates) of deaths attendant to the Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., even if you were to swallow so monstrous a lie as to think that every last civilian death in those wars was the result of deliberate murder by coalition forces (i.e. every last innocent civilian died at the hands of a bloodthirsty maniac with an M-16, grenade, flame-thrower, etc, who went out of his/her way to kill that civilian as he/she ran, screaming, for cover--or perhaps was on his/her knees, begging for mercy before being killed).
You're clutching at excuses, and trying to "shoehorn" the Church's teaching to justify your apparent decision to vote for Senator Obama.
Have some sense, man.
In Christ,
Brian
P.S. At the risk of being incongruous: nice to bump into you, Jeff! :)
Brian:
Thank you for assuming that I am in earnest.
As you have stated things, you are absolutely right. Abortion is inherently worse than wars of imperialism and, if that were our choice, then I would have to vote against abortion.
But my point is that our choice is between ending the war or voting for empty promises to end abortion.
It’s not like the Republicans are running principled pro-lifers like Alan Keys or Pat Buchanan. I don’t think that McCain has any real intention of ending abortion, but I think we have ample reason to believe that Obama will end the war in Irak. The issue in play is war, not abortion, and I think we have to recognize this as a political reality.
Yours For A Better World — Jeff
"but I think we have ample reason to believe that Obama will end the war in Irak."
Actually we have ample reason to doubt that Obama knows what he would do in regard to Iraq. His latest plan is a sixteen month phased withdrawal. He also has assured the Iraqi foreign minister that he will not act precipitously and that he wants to continue the progress made in Iraq. If you are voting for Iraq because you expect him to immediately cut and run I suspect you will be sadly mistaken.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/17/obama.iraq/index.html?iref=hpmostpop
However on abortion I believe he will keep his promises:
"Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said. "That's the first thing I'd do."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200806/CUL20080612a.html
Obama also agrees with me in regard to Gonzales v. Carhart: Obama hinted that the court's recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart -- which upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion -- was part of "a concerted effort to steadily roll back" access to abortions. And he ridiculed Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote that case's majority opinion. "Justice Kennedy knows many things," he declared, "but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor." http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/17/274143.aspx
No doubt he will appoint only pro-Roe judges.
All in all I suspect that an Obama administration will do little to change an Iraq policy that post-surge seems to be working and he will do everything in his power to enact a pro-abortion agenda.
Dutchman (no offense meant in not calling you "Jeff" right away--I wanted to distinguish you from "Jeffrey"--a friend of mine(!)--who posted earlier),
I respect your concern about the war in Iraq (though I disagree with your take on it, to put it mildly), but as for the abortion issue, I'm having a very hard time following your reasoning. If I follow your moral calculus correctly, you think thusly:
a) voting for Democrats will not end abortion, but neither will voting for Republicans.
b) voting for Democrats will end the war in Iraq (or at least our participation in it), and voting for Republicans will prolong it.
c) Given the likelihood of no gain in (a), and given the likelihood of gain in (b), one should vote for Democrats.
If the above is correct, I'll have to take exception to some of your starting assumptions:
1) You seem to be using the question "will abortion end if I vote for [insert party here]?" as your only diagnostic, regarding abortion. I can only wonder why you restrict yourself to such a hair-thin and weak slice of the entire abortion issue! Other questions arise in my mind:
a) Will [party in question] act to reduce the number of abortions, and can their proposed means be reasonably expected to influence (or at least try to influence) things in that direction?
b) Will [party in question], on the other hand, act to *increase* the number of abortions (even if that isn't their stated objective)? Similarly, will [party in question] act to de-restrict abortion?
c) Will [party in question] continue to tolerate and/or promote "popular" distortions of holy sexuality (e.g. normalization of homosexuality in the public sphere, promotion of contraceptive use, opposing restrictions on pornography, enabling/encouraging "easy" divorce laws, etc.), which can reasonably be expected to degrade the already battered American understanding of the human person and human sexuality, and which can reasonably be expected to encourage mindsets which allow abortion to flourish?
d) Will the party in question promote the eradication of the Judeo-Christian ethos from American culture, politics, and the public square? From what I've seen, the vacuum created by the absence of Christianity is very often filled by a "well-meaning libertarianism" and a near-complete moral relativism which denies all appeal to objective moral truth (such as "abortion is an inhuman crime [cf. Gaudium et Spes, 51.3; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2270-2275).
That past quote highlights your political approach to the problem of abortion: you flee from the idea of calling a crime a crime, and treating it accordingly. Yes, abortion is a crime... and crimes should be punished, for the sake of the offender's salvation (in encouraging him to amend his ways) as well as for the sake of the culture at large.
And as for the notion that we "shouldn't make it illegal, but we should change hearts and minds"--are we truly so inept that we can't "walk and chew gum at the same time", and try--however imperfectly--to do *both*?
In Christ,
Brian
Post a Comment