An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Late Night Election 2008 Jokes

‘I’m a PC’ Booth Outside of an Apple Store »

Abortion, Politics, and the Grace of an Informed Reply

Posted by PETE ABEL, Managing Editor in Politics.
Nov 1st, 2008 | Comments

Last week, I wrote about Bishop Robert Hermann’s edict that Catholics put aside other considerations and vote single-mindedly for the candidate “less permissive of abortion.”

Yesterday, my wife shared an email from a Catholic friend of ours, one of many such emails my wife has received in the last couple of weeks. The subject line of this most recent email was a question: “Supporter of A New Holocaust?” The effective message echoed Bishop Hermann’s edict, i.e., a vote for Obama is a vote for mass murder.

While my wife and I respect this friend’s right to disagree with us on the issues, we are both frustrated by the pattern that this friend’s email represents — a pattern of otherwise, good and smart people who apply an abortion litmus test to this election and refuse to consider the moral weight of other aspects of the presidential candidates’ persons and positions.

And that is why we were impressed with another friend of ours, who received the same, abortion-centric email and replied to it as follows, below the fold. I recommend this friends’ reply as a model for others who are bombarded and frustrated by email (or other mail) that takes a similar, far-too-narrow view of this election.

I hope you and your family are doing well!

While I certainly support and affirm your anti-abortion stance, I cannot in good conscience vote for John McCain, a man who has a personal life history filled with immoral choices. The Catholic Bishops in their “Forming Conscience for a Faithful Citizenship” statement give us permission to choose a pro-choice candidate when the pro-life candidate is morally inferior in an overall sense … I think it is dangerous for Catholics to give (McCain) a rubber stamp based on his stance on one issue, especially when his personal life (a measure of true character) has been so immoral. Instead, I support a man who has lived as a faithful husband, a good father and Christian, who promises to end an immoral war (which the Catholic Church has condemned) and to help the poor and disadvantaged and to end terrorism by encouraging dialogue and understanding, two valuable Christian principles.

A prominent Catholic theologian I heard interviewed on the radio this week had research that supported voting for Obama would reduce the number of abortions because his policies would provide affordable health care and family planning services, thus reducing the need for abortions. While I was in grad school at Wash U, I did a research paper on unplanned pregnancies and I learned that women who seek higher education and have a way out of poverty avoid unwanted pregnancies. Barack Obama’s policies will help to reduce poverty, increase access to education, and as a result, reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

In anticipation of making this difficult choice, I have read about the two candidates extensively in as unbiased of media sources as I could find. I have evaluated their voting records. I consulted with a family member (who is a devout Republican) who has worked directly with Senator McCain. Finally, I have consulted with a valued member of the clergy whom I trust. So, I am at peace with my decision.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

smmoulder

I think this response is not only a reasoned response, but captures the essence of the moderate perspective. That is, those of us who have not sworn allegiance to any rigid ideological perspective can (and will) look at the bigger picture. I feel that the most telling arguments are those that point out how there are likely to be fewer abortions under Obama than McCain. And that from a broader moral/Christian perspective, Obama nets out as the "better" candidate.

I read this response as a reasoned argument that netted out in support for Obama. Not the swooning of someone under the Obama spell, but someone who used their intellect and an open mind to come to a well thought out conclusion. The essence of the moderate perspective.

The fact that this person went to the same school as I did was just icing on the cake. :-)

Stuart

CStanley

I happen to agree with the part about not being a one issue voter- I'm strongly prolife but I do consider the totality of a candidate's positions. I don't think there's anything inconsistent in the Catholic Church's weighting of the issue of abortion though- but then from there, each voter has to decide if they agree with that.

I do take issue with the argument that an Obama administration will see fewer abortions. Obama promises to sign the FOCA in the early days of his administration- this will have the effect of overturning ALL state laws restricting abortions and requiring parental consent.

And since when would a Catholic theologian find it morally acceptable to substitute contraception for abortion? You may disagree that the former is immoral, but if you disagree than you are not using Catholic moral teaching. Personally I think the legal line should be between the two- artificial contraception is a choice that I would not make, but it's based on religious reasoning and thus should not be part of our legal code- but abortion involves the killing of a human being and thus is distinctly a legal concern. I'm just trying to point out though that anyone who calls himself a Catholic theologian is actually not acting in good standing with Rome to tout birth control as a remedy for abortions.

jdave

Pete,

I respect your decision, especially since I've made the same one, and I am both a devout Catholic and staunchly pro-life. I'd like you to consider though, how your reasoning skirts some important considerations. At the same time I think it points out serious flaws in the logic of so many bishops. First the bishops....

I suggest meeting the challenge of the bishops head-on. Recognize that abortion is taking an innocent life, BUT voting for Mccain will absolutely NOT stop the 1.4 million abortions we have every year. That is the false premise of their reasoning: 1.4million murders trumps everything else. They also fail to recognize two very important matters about the role of the president: 1) he has very little direct effect on abortion - which they want to be the ONLY consideration, and 2) they have very direct effect on many other matters - which they want us to ignore.

Even if vile Roe v Wade were overturned, the vast majority of Americans will vote to keep abortion legal. I think that is horrible, but it is what it is. The president is not king. The president must enforce the will of the people. Too many pro-lifers blame the courts and the president for abortion, when it is the people who are to blame.

Now on to your reasoning.....

It's all well and good to say that you are considering a panoply of moral issues, but a truly honest approach must recognize that not every moral issue is equal in weight. Do you believe that abortion is the taking of an innocent life? Or is it merely an ugly reality? You make no claim either way in your reasoning, and it would have a great effect on how you weigh the moral question.

pacatrue

Of course, the morality of abortion cannot be decided based simply upon the personhood status of the unborn child (notice I didn't call it a fetus for rhetorical reasons). If one's view of abortion depended only on how one views the infant, then one has reduced the person bearing the infant to nothing. Sort of a box or biological incubator. In my view, pregnancy is one life inside of another life, and I cannot only consider one of them in figuring out the way to act.

jdave

Quite right pacatrue! For example, I don't know any serious person, theologian, or church that would not abort the unborn child when the mother would otherwise die.

im4america2

Religion as we've known it is dead. Reverend Obama has led his flock toward secular liberalism and away from the living God and the fact of sin. Sin has been redefined to meet political convenience. Reverend Obama's referendum for Change shall not be circumvented and such archaic Christian beliefs will no longer be tolerated within the teachings of the Church of Obama.

Manchester2

The response assumes that greater education = fewer unwanted pregnancies. Has a study been done that establishes this assumption?

Manchester2

JDave -

If the desired outcome is a decrease in the number of abortions, then overturning Roe v. Wade will move us closer to that outcome. How so? Look at Sabato's electoral map. Wherever you see Red, you're likely post-Roe to have very limited access to abortion, or no access. In many of the blue states, you'd have some restrictions on abortion, and in some blue states, no restrictions. This assumes:

1) McCain wins;
2) he appoints conservative judges to the Supreme Court;
3) those judges actually vote as expected, and eventually overturn Roe;
4) things revert to more-or-less how they were pre-1973, which may be assuming too much.

Under a President Obama, the Freedom of Choice Act will likely (though not inevitably) pass, an act that would roll back current restrictions states have put on abortion. What would that outcome be? Almost certainly, that would mean more abortions annually than we now have.
We also should think globally on this, and a President Obama would overturn the Mexico City policy, which currently forbids U.S.-AID non-governmental organizations receiving U.S. tax dollars from promoting abortions oversees. So, the number of abortions overseas would also increase.

You may think that voting one's view on abortion is too narrow. Many cultural conservatives do not. Generally speaking, I follow this rule, but have made exceptions where checks on abortion were already in-place, and there was a fiscally conservative candidate on the ballot who (unfortunately) was also pro-abortion. Sometimes, it's difficult to balance out social and fiscal conservatism in one vote!

jdave

Machester2 - I'm not nearly as optimistic as you are that voters are ready to limit access to abortion, but I hope you are right. South Dakota has a referendum on it Tuesday. We'll see.

Let me clarify briefly. Yes, voting on abortion alone is too narrow. But it is certainly justifiable to conclude that abortion outweighs all other considerations. My argument was more specifically: RvW won't do anything if voters do not want restrictions on abortion, and if that's the case, then it is not at all justifiable to ignore everything else for the sake of a futile attempt at stopping abortions.

DLS

Wait until Medicare is provided to girls and women able to get pregnant. Abortion will be impossible to escape then.

I roll my eyes when I hear some say that abortion is an important issue in this or any federal election (more noted these days among conservatives than liberals, other than the lunatic militant far-left fringe obscessed with Roe v. Wade and their fellows defending judicial activism). Abortion properly has never been and shouldn't ever become a federal issue, but left correctly to states and localities to legislate as they see fit. Sadly, with activist rulings, what the Left has sown, not only must it now reap, but the rest of us, unfortunately.

OURANOS

As someone who is very much pro-life it pains me to admit this, but the idea that electing a particular president has significant effect on the regulation of abortion is simply incorrect. Just as electing George W. Bush demonstrated, a pro-life president and a Republican-majority legislature regulation do not equate to a widespread push for a ban on abortion. In fact with the notable exception of the ban on partial birth abortion, little has changed during Bush's two terms. Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned it just goes back to the states to decide, and as the ballot measure in South Dakota(a "Red" State) just proved even the more conservative areas of the country are not willing to enact strong anti-abortion legislation. If one of the country's more conservative states is unwilling to, it is unlikely that other states would do so.

Also the idea that liberal judges are the only ones capable of judicial activism is unfair and misleading, judges of all political affiliations are perfectly capable of making decisions that can be considered "activism" . I am not a liberal and disagree with much of their ideology, but I still find it offensive that anyone would believe only judges of the opposite end of the political spectrum can make mistakes. There have been many poor decisions made by conservative, moderate, and liberal justices, everyone makes mistakes. The truth is that the supreme court is essentially a sitting constitutional convention and the majority of Americans simply expect the justices to write the opinions they agree with into law. When the court rules one way those with opposing views almost always cry judicial activism regardless of the decision.

blog comments powered by Disqus