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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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