The Catholic voter, one more time
In case you don’t look at our homepage as often as you visit our blog, I’d like to call to your attention to a new web-only article — one more perspective on the complications of voting as a Catholic in this election. Here’s a sample of the piece, which is by William J. Gould:
In this political and religious climate, I find Doug Kmiec’s support for Sen. Barack Obama a salutary and refreshing development. I say this as someone who does not fully share Kmiec’s enthusiastic embrace of Obama or his high expectations regarding what an Obama presidency is likely to achieve. Instead I write as someone who has long been disenchanted with American politics and who fully expects that we will continue to be ill-governed no matter who wins the election.
Read the whole thing here.
A worthy and balanced piece that will probably draw the wrath of many in the pro-life community -and that summarizes the divsion problem we continue to have at this blog.
On a side note , I see Cardinal Egan’shackles are up about Justice Stephen Breyer receiving an ethics award from Fordham.
Mr. Gould may need to watch out. As Mr. Kmiec found out, the litmus test of whom you support on a campus depends on one isue alone.
Is anyone here, or in the series of related articles appearing from the liberal Catholic mindset, willing to just admit that the present pro-life strategy is not merely anti-Roe-alone, and willing to stop describing the strategy in those false terms only, but instead willing to state that even though they consider other issues more important in this instance, which is fine, what is at stake is not merely anti-Roe vs. government funding of pregnancy, but what is at stake is whether to:
- pass state restrictions on abortion or strike all of them down under FOCA and increase abortions by hundreds of thousands,
- maintain or eliminate the Hyde Amendment,
- don’t pay for or pay for abortions under universal health care,
- maintain or eliminate the Mexico City policy,
- maintain or eliminate the ban on partial birth abortions,
- assist or drive out of business pro-life pregnancy centers,
- fund adult stem cell research and some research on existing embryos or fund the creation of new embryos to kill and clone embryos that must be killed and deemphasize adult stem cell research
and, yes, the courts too.
If not a recognition that these are among the basic facts, how about at least an explanation of why each these things are not part of the abortion reduction calculus?
How can the continual ignoring of these things be a legitimate way to discuss the present situation?
William J. Gould is right on target.
Weighing all the issues and coming to a conclusion about who is the best candidate is what voters (not bishops) are for. Has there ever been a time in American history when Catholic voters were subjected to so much pressure? Certainly not in the run-up the the Civli War, or during the civil rights movement.
Couple of notes:
One regards Cardinal Egan, who as I note at Beliefnet, has not only engaged in a bit of a tussle with Fordham over the Breyer honor, but has also felt some blowback himself for honoring Barack Obama at the Al Smith Dinner. (“Do as I say, not as I do,” one might say.)
http://blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2008/10/cardinal-egan-do-as-i-saynot-a.html
Oh, and Egan has also invoked the Hitler-Stalin axis on the abortion debate.
Also, as Matt Bowman has become a fairly regular commentator here in the run-up to the election, I don’t think it is widely know that he is (and Matt, please correct me if something has changed) a lawyer for the conservative lobby group, Alliance Defense Fund:
See here: http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/main/default.aspx
And here: http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/08/05/matt-bowman-mr-saletan-thou-shall-not-kill-even-in-the-name-of-birth-control/
Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but I think full disclosure is the best practice, especially if one is in the politics biz in the home stretch of a campaign.
Carry on.
DavidG–thanks for the advertising. If you are interested, I am commenting here in my personal capacity. But I have nothing to hide–that’s why I don’t try to comment anonymously.
Matt: if I may quote you in your personal capacity, I’m wondering how “Barack AbortObama will make America into an Abort-O-Rama!” can be a “legitimate way to discuss the present situation.”
The anti-Roe-alone argument may not be the approach of the entire prolife community, but it does seem more than fair as a characterization of at least some of the recent bishops’ statements on the Catholic vote. If it were up to the bishops I’ve been reading, I wouldn’t know a thing about FOCA, and I wouldn’t be spending time considering stem-cell issues. Even if they did consider all those issues, the presidential election still wouldn’t be a referendum on abortion, as Gould says. We wouldn’t have so much to discuss it if were.
Wow, just checked out that web site. Matt, you may want to consider hiding some things…
Ms. O’Reilly: The USCCB has spent a lot of time on FOCA, as have the Texas Bishops and other individual bishops. I imagine you can find Bishops who don’t mention it, but which ones specifically are anti-Roe-only, and how many? FOCA is not a hidden issue. Do you think it is fair to not include it in the discussion at all?
DG–I appreciate the feedback!
I’d like to hear more from some of our learned members of the bar (who are not so partisan) as to what they think of Breyer being honored by Fordham.
Obviously, he was close to Sandra Dey and they perceived themselves as centrist gradulaists who had little use for the politization they saw Bush trying to accomplish ala Ashcroft.
It strikes me as clear that there is now a push back, in many young at least, against the conservative evangelical agenda. There may even be (and I’m hardly sure of this) a push back against the manipulation of media by think tank talking pointers (backed by big money.)
I guess the issue of perspective and frame(s) folks bring as the Bush years wind down play a hefty role in how the pro-life emphasis plays.
And, of course, there’s the economy coloring most perceptions….
I’m shocked, SHOCKED to learn that Matt Bowman is a conservative attorney :-)
And, to raise people’s blood pressure even more, I went to Ave Maria Law School, too.
… but on to the topic at hand.
Here’s the pattern I’ve noticed in this spate of high-profile-Catholic-endorses-Obama stories:
* Point out that church teaching is much broader and richer than abortion-only
* Dismiss any Catholic who votes for McCain is a single-issue zealot
* Acknowledge that, church teaching inconveniently being what it is, abortion can’t positively be ignored by the voter …
* … but dismiss bishops who speak out on behalf of the unborn as surrogates for the Republican Party rather than teachers of the faith
* Construct an elaborate justification for marginalizing abortion, as follows:
– McCain can’t really do much about abortion – after all, Republicans never have done anything
– What’s more, Democrats will never approve a pro-life Supreme Court justice
– But even if they do, and even if Roe v Wade is somehow overturned, it won’t really make a difference because the states will just keep it legal
* And of course it goes without saying that Obama will help poor pregnant women. (Whether McCain also would help poor pregnant women is something that they never seem to get around to considering)
Does that about cover it?
It should go without saying, but apparently it doesn’t, so I’ll just go ahead anyway: I’m not a single-issue voter. But based on what the church teaches – including on abortion – it’s perfectly plausible to vote for McCain.
Jim:
Yes, you have nailed it. Perfectly.
And as for full disclosure – shouldn’t Cathy Kaveny and Grant Gallicho publicly disclose their participation in the Obama campaign every time they post? I think they should – a disclaimer or something.
And Matt’s right, too. The refusal by Obama supporters claiming to be pro-life to address what Obama has directly said he would do on the abortion issue as well as his record is really getting to be ridiculous.
Well, they do – and perhaps we could add this to what Jim wrote. They say, “Oh, it FOCA won’t get passed. It’s really not an issue.”
I found myself nodding in agreement as Dean Gould was humming along in his essay, especially when he stated the following:
“At the moment, neither party is a good vehicle for the promotion of Catholic social principles. Catholics who truly understand and embrace the main ideas of the Catholic political and social tradition will find themselves politically homeless and regularly confronted with unattractive voting options. But if political homelessness is the characteristic condition of American Catholics, then the proper response of church authorities should be to acknowledge that lamentable situation rather than to offer de facto political endorsements—as they are coming perilously close to doing with the Republican Party.”
But then he tipped his hand as to whom he plans to vote for. IMO, the essay would have been much more powerful if he had simply set forth his two themes–i.e., the clergy should not be telling Catholics how to vote, and being pro-life includes more than just opposition to abortion– and had not injected his personal political choice into the mix.
Jim: “Dismiss any Catholic who votes for McCain is a single-issue zealot”
Shouldn’t start out like that, Jim. No, but people have been dismissive of self proclaimed single-issue zealots who want to vote for McCain.
Jim: “Acknowledge that, church teaching inconveniently being what it is, abortion can’t positively be ignored by the voter …”
There you go again. “Inconveniently”? Are you suggesting, then, that pro-life voters have to hold your opinions and vote like you and that people who don’t hold your opinions and what to vote like you really don’t want to end abortion?
Jim: “…but dismiss bishops who speak out on behalf of the unborn as surrogates for the Republican Party rather than teachers of the faith”
I think that they dismiss bishops who act as surrogates for the Republican Party masquerading as teachers of faith.
Jim: “Construct an elaborate justification for marginalizing abortion, as follows:
- McCain can’t really do much about abortion – after all, Republicans never have done anything
- What’s more, Democrats will never approve a pro-life Supreme Court justice
- But even if they do, and even if Roe v Wade is somehow overturned, it won’t really make a difference because the states will just keep it legal”
All of these things happen to be true. The fact that you don’t seem to think that any of this matters tells me that on this issue you will keep on doing what you already have. You are attacking people because they don’t think that what has not worked before won’t work in the future either. For you, it’s not enough to be opposed to abortion. One has to be opposed to abortion in the way that you think one has to be.
Jim: “And of course it goes without saying that Obama will help poor pregnant women. (Whether McCain also would help poor pregnant women is something that they never seem to get around to considering)”
What has McCain said or done that makes it look like he won’t make the situation in the US any worse i.e. that he won’t continue the policies of Bush?
Jim: “It should go without saying, but apparently it doesn’t, so I’ll just go ahead anyway: I’m not a single-issue voter. But based on what the church teaches – including on abortion – it’s perfectly plausible to vote for McCain.”
But it’s also perfectly plausible to vote for Obama based on what the Church teaches. That’s what these discussions have all been about.
Matt —
Ad hominem arguments are a sign that no one has a good answer to your argument . . . which is perfectly apt, by the way. I’m mystified that some pro-Obama-but-supposedly-anti-abortion-Catholics consistently act as if the only debate is whether to 1) overturn Roe (while doing nothing else), or 2) keep Roe while enacting billions of dollars of anti-poverty relief that would supposedly lessen abortion rates. In fact, as you’ve correctly pointed out, there are many other aspects to the abortion issue.
Dismiss any Catholic who votes for McCain is a single-issue zealot . . . . But based on what the church teaches – including on abortion – it’s perfectly plausible to vote for McCain.
Jim,
You’ve given a good outline of the Catholic case for Obama, except, if I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying the Catholics for Obama are arguing that Catholics may not vote for McCain.
A lot of the arguments coming from Catholics for Obama are something like, “We support Obama, and we are arguing against the view that Catholics must support McCain.” Whereas the pro-life Catholics are frequently arguing, “Catholics have no choice but to vote for McCain, no matter what their position on all the other issues, and if they vote for Obama, they will have to explain that on Judgment Day.”
Probably for most of the people who will vote for McCain, they would be doing so even if there were no difference between Obama and McCain on abortion. One wonders if, by some miracle, Obama and McCain were to swap positions on abortion today, the people arguing so passionately that you must vote for McCain because of his pro-life position would do an about face and make the same argument in favor of Obama for the next seven days. I don’t think so!
I was going to say what Unagidon (ETA: and David N.) just said — there’s a difference between saying “a Catholic isn’t required to vote for McCain” and “a Catholic who votes for McCain is a fool.” I haven’t seen nearly as much of the latter (an opinion, defensible but by no means unassailable) as I have of the former (a fact, though frequently not acknowledged as such).
William may be right — it might have been more effective for Gould to talk about Catholics being “politically homeless” without telling us what conclusion he personally has come to. I don’t think the “Why I’m voting for Obama” part of this essay is as important as the part about “Why I’m glad there are people willing to say that Catholics don’t have to vote Republican.”
NB: The term “ad hominem” is getting thrown around a lot on this blog lately. Please note that it’s not a trump card unless you’re using it correctly (if then).
I have offended people here, I admit. Prof. Rick Garnett, however, is a respectable man. His comment today:
“This consistent refusal — by Reese, McBrien, Kmiec, Cafardi, etc. — to engage the effects of policies that will increase the abortion rate, in the context of their contentions that pro-lifers should stop worrying about Roe and put their hopes in an Obama administration’s social-welfare programs, is inexcusable.”
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2008/10/frs-mcbrien-and.html
One more note on the Breyer selection: it shows up at Fordham Law on 8/19/08 in their newsnotes.
It commends Breyewr “in every phase of his profesional life” of being an exemplar of intelligence and commitment to justice.
It’s clear to me that he’s seen as a model of restraint, thoughtfulness, and centrism as opposed to his more liberal coleagues, or the “originalist” rants of Scalia or the brooding distancing of Thomas.
So, the timing of the Egan shot – so close to election – makes me wonder.
Personally, I know what I’d want in a justice of the Supreme court for all American people in all the vitakl cases that touch their lives.
And, as to Episcopal heavy handedness, DG has another excellent thread over at Pontifications on Fr. Farrow and his slap down over Prop.8 in California.
The ad hominem implication of previous posts here was, “Matt Bowman is a nutty conservative who has a website that opposes Obama, and therefore we don’t even need to respond to his argument that many Democrats want to promote abortion in about a dozen ways outside of merely preserving Roe.” If that’s not what you meant, of course, then how about addressing the merits of his argument (and Rick Garnett’s identical argument, linked above)?
Stuart, “ad hominem implication” — there’s your problem right there. You may feel an appeal to emotion/prejudice rather than reason is implied, but it needs to be overt to be “ad hominem.”
Let me say clearly that no one owes Matt Bowman, or you, or anyone else commenting here, a response of any kind. This is a forum for comments, not a chat room, and not a courtroom. And you are all free (and encouraged!) to ignore any comments that don’t seem worth your time or attention.
That said: Matt questioned the legitimacy of this article’s presentation of the voting question. It is not “ad hominem” to respond, as I have done, that this article’s approach to the complicated issue of abortion is at least as “legitimate” as any of the sloganeering on AbortObama.com. I mean, just typing that URL makes me queasy. “A website that opposes Obama” doesn’t begin to cover it.
I’m not saying that you literally owe Matt Bowman or Rick Garnett a response on the merits. Nonetheless, they have made a rational and compelling argument (whatever your qualms about Mr. Bowman’s background or other activities). If anyone can come up with an equally reasoned response, it would be interesting to see what they have to say.
What I find [distressingly] missing in this blog is an actual addressing of the issues involved – current and historical – in abortion. Abortion used to be a prerogative of the Republican country club woman set, which is to say, have your pleasure and get rid of the consequences. [You will find it echoed in THE WASTE LAND]. Then it was deliberately extended to the black and the poor [Margaret Sanger's Negro problem].
In the majority [see the Guttmacher statistics], the reasons given for aborting the child in the womb have to do with convenience; Peter Singer’s woman who does not want a pregnancy interfering with her ski vacation.
But few seem to mention how a pregnancy begins. To quote HST, if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you don’t want to get pregnant, stay out of the bed. I may be simple minded, but I believe that the Church did not create this simple [natural] law.
Abortion is demeaning to women. The man had all the fun; she gets all the problems. Not to mention the similarity to prostitution.
Concerning “single issue” politics, I referred to the distinction in Catholic moral teaching between a negative prohibition and positive injunction. The former is forbidden on all occasions and at all times. Such is the case with the killing of the child in the womb [or out of it, for that matter].
Positive injunctions are those which require us personally [not chiefly governmentally] to help the poor, the needy, the sick, the homeless, to avoid war if possible. to ponder the death penalty. These are matters for the exercise of prudence. But they are not absolute.
Now it seems to me that we can agree on this distinction. That should advance the discussion.
Another aspect which is purely Catholic is a recognition that our bishops are not in it for the money or prestige. [Some may feel that they are, but I suggest that they look first in a mirror]. Our bishops’ chief efforts are to get us past the pearly gates, almost despite ourselves. Let us attempt, if only as a matter of courtesy, to give them credit for that.
Now there are several topics for discussion.
“And as for full disclosure – shouldn’t Cathy Kaveny and Grant Gallicho publicly disclose their participation in the Obama campaign every time they post? I think they should – a disclaimer or something. ”
Mark, thank you for your kind words of support. Both Grant and Cathleen did disclose their involvement here, earlier in the campaign. Not sure if you were around, though.
At any rate, it’s been disclosed again, now … :-)
“Probably for most of the people who will vote for McCain, they would be doing so even if there were no difference between Obama and McCain on abortion. One wonders if, by some miracle, Obama and McCain were to swap positions on abortion today, the people arguing so passionately that you must vote for McCain because of his pro-life position would do an about face and make the same argument in favor of Obama for the next seven days. I don’t think so!”
If Obama were to mirror McCain’s legislative history and stated positions on the complex of pro-life issues, I’d be much more inclined to vote for him. (Actually, I’d do it in a heartbeart. For me, it would be a no-brainer).
As RU486 becomes the choice to abort and RU486 becomes as easy to obtain as asprin, what in God’s name does voting for anyone have to do with the issue?
The pols can’t even control their own greed no less than others behavior!
As a pro-life person I say the Church/bishops/laity better place their energy into preaching love of life/non-violence/ option for the poor. Who educated these bishops into thinking they can enforce instead of encouraging morality?
Squabbling has no truth for true Christians.
” I don’t think the “Why I’m voting for Obama” part of this essay is as important as the part about “Why I’m glad there are people willing to say that Catholics don’t have to vote Republican.””
In fact, the former subverts the latter.
I took the article to be an endorsement announcement with a justification concatenated on. Are you saying that wasn’t its intent?
“As RU486 becomes the choice to abort and RU486 becomes as easy to obtain as asprin, what in God’s name does voting for anyone have to do with the issue?”
One straightforward thing would be to vote for candidates who will work to ensure the conscience rights of pharmacists who don’t want to prescribe it.
In additiion to the Garnet piece at Mirror of Justice referenced above, which is well worth reading, please see this article by Michael New that debunks the claim that pro-life legislation has no effect on the number of abortions.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.24_New_Michael%20J._Pro-Life%20Politicians%20Have%20Made%20a%20Difference,%20Pro-Life%20Laws%20Work_.xml
Abortion is demeaning to women. The man had all the fun; she gets all the problems.
Gabriel,
How true. But don’t you think it would be even worse if women had fun, too? Then, instead of just dutifully satisfying men, they might also start having sex when they wanted to, and think what that might lead to.
Here are the reasons women give for having abortion. I can’t find anything about ski trips.
Percent
<0.5 woman’s parents want her to have abortion
1 rape or incest
1 husband or partner wants her to have abortion
1 doesn’t want others to know she had relations or is pregnant
3 mother has health problems
3 possible fetal health problems
3 other
8 has all the children she wanted or all children are grown
11 is too immature or young to have child
12 has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood
16 concerned about how having baby would change her life
21 unready for responsibility
21 can’t afford baby now
“One wonders if, by some miracle, Obama and McCain were to swap positions on abortion today, the people arguing so passionately that you must vote for McCain because of his pro-life position would do an about face and make the same argument in favor of Obama for the next seven days. I don’t think so!”
Well, I would. It would be rough because I happen to think that Obama is wrong on just about every other issue, as well, but as someone wrote in an earlier piece, “I can’t break faith with the unborn — they have no voice.”
The articles that I’ve read, and the current one as well, keep calling the bishops shills for the Republican party. I’m not sure I understand this line of argument. Why does opposition to a candidate (Obama) equate to support for the *party* of his opponent? Why it can’t just be taken at face value, as opposition to an individual candidate? For example, from the current article:
“Significant portions of the Catholic Church in the United States appear committed to the proposition that the only acceptable political manifestation of being a Catholic entails embracing the Republican Party.”
Not my perspective, anyway, and not what I have understood any of the accused bishops to be saying. Archbishop Chaput once worked for the Carter campaign, for goodness’ sake.
When I read the bishops’ statements, I see opposition to an individual candidate, based on his record and professed positions.
When I read the responses, often as not I see a lot of accusation of partisanship and little substantive argument.
“Abortion is demeaning to women. The man had all the fun; she gets all the problems. Not to mention the similarity to prostitution.”
What an astonishingly ignorant thing to say.
“I’m not saying that you literally owe Matt Bowman or Rick Garnett a response on the merits. Nonetheless, they have made a rational and compelling argument (whatever your qualms about Mr. Bowman’s background or other activities). If anyone can come up with an equally reasoned response, it would be interesting to see what they have to say.”
Anyone?
Thank God for pseudonyms. Echoing what a few others have said here, I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why FOCA won’t pass in an Obama administration with a favorable majority in the House of Reps and a possible filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Jim,
Marx was right when he said: “A wo/man’s philosophy is dependent on her economics.”
Any further questions?
Actually, when Roe v Wade is overturned it will not then be a matter for the States to decide because a person is the same person wherever they may be located which includes inside or outside their Mother’s Womb.
David, what about the Rights of Fathers that do not want their Babies to be aborted?
David G,
Either the Alliance defense Fund has gotten too many hits or the IRS is investigating, that site has been down for awhile. Will the next feed say: “Under construction?”
“Thank God for pseudonyms. Echoing what a few others have said here, I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why FOCA won’t pass in an Obama administration with a favorable majority in the House of Reps and a possible filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.”
In actual practice, the Democratic Party is as pro-choice as the Republican Party is pro-life. So no, it’s not going to pass.
I have no doubt that Rick Garnett is a respectable man. But his reason is quite faulty. He does not answer Peter Nixon’s detailed objection and he is really devoid of reason. He merely says Reese is just wrong and the others are just wrong. C’mon.
As threads about abortion at dotCommonweal become ever more predictable, I find myself estranged from both of the dominant worldviews.
One constellation holds that legal proscription of abortion is absolutely of the highest priority, that hedging on this matter cannot be tolerated, and that anyone who isn’t fully on board is in serious conflict with the tradition’s core principles. The other constellation holds that legal proscription of abortion is a diversion at best and perhaps wrongheaded, that a plurality of views on this matter deserve equal consideration, and that anyone who believes to the contrary is seriously out of touch.
A plain reading of these threads suggest that advocates of each position loathe advocates of the other position. Neither side consistently displays either curiosity or tolerance for the opposite view. Both sides regularly impugn the motives of others…driving those others to ever more extreme and caustic commentary.
Let’s stipulate that the contempt is mutual. As a progressive Catholic and Obama supporter, however, I hold my tribe to a higher standard. We, after all, are those who proclaim the importance of tolerance and inclusivity. Is it really that hard to imagine how we would *feel* if the zeitgeist were steamrolling a cherished belief? Isn’t it possible to resonate *both* with Kmeic *and* with those prolifers who fee abandoned and marginalized? Am I the only one around here that believes that there is a middle-range position (between unimpeded access and total prohibition) and middle-range importance (somewhere between litmus test and off the radar screen)? And if, in the last analysis, it is not possible to provide legal protection to the unborn, isn’t it incumbent upon us to at least say that that is really, really sad?
Here’s an excerpt of a Peter Steinfels take on a similar cultural scene circa 2004:
“Fanaticism exists, of course, and stupidity, too. Wild claims and aggressive demands have been made in the name of moral values, often enough by figures competing for public attention. Latching upon these is an easy and tempting way to deaden the kind of empathy and imagination necessary to comprehend another perspective.
“A condescending incredulity offers a slightly more sophisticated way to derail any inquiry into the moral values issues. Just treat one’s own views as so established and self-evident that any questioning of them can only be a puzzling and pathological “backlash.” Are there really still people out there opposed to abortion rights? How incomprehensible!
.
.
.
“Suppose that these barriers to pursuing the question of moral values can be overcome. What then? The endgame should not be some expedient concession or cosmetic exercise to garner votes next time around. The endgame should be an honest discussion of the moral stances dividing Americans, each side (and there may be more than two) addressing the contending arguments at their best and not at their worst. It is not unthinkable that a few minds might be changed, and a great many people feel less alienated.”
New York Times, November 6, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/national/06beliefs.html?ex=1100925572&ei=1&en=3e0c7486b1394fed
“I was going to say what Unagidon (ETA: and David N.) just said — there’s a difference between saying “a Catholic isn’t required to vote for McCain” and “a Catholic who votes for McCain is a fool.” ”
Hi, Mollie, if you don’t mind my saying so, the bloggers who endorse McCain and give a reason why are in somewhat short supply on this blog. :-)
The redefining of Marriage and the Family is also a major issue in this election. What is the compelling evidence, that some Catholics on this blog think they have, that proves that God has changed His intention for Sexual Love , which from the beginning has always been, between a Husband and Wife within a Holy Marriage.
For those of you are looking for a solid response to Garnett, here is the article that Rick objects to. McBrien’s reasoning appears more sound while Rick’s looks more like a rant.
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2008/10/catholics-abort.html
Mike McG, you know, as a Catholic, regarding the issues of abortion and Marriage and the Family, there is no compromise that could ever be acceptable. These issues do not belong to the realm of Ceaser, but to God.
P.S., Some interesting points for discussion in the New York Times article. It should be noted, however, that the Catholic Church is a Theocracy, with Christ as the Head and His Church as the Body. He was the first to be Baptized by Water and the Spirit into His Church, and He promises to be with us until the end of Time.
A true or false question for you from Richard McBrien’s article:
“It is a matter of fact, not opinion, that abortions increased under President Ronald Reagan and peaked during both Bush Administrations.”
http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2319
This is an open book question.
Hint: the word “both”
Amen, Mike McG.
According to the Guttmacher data on annual abortion rates per 1000 women of childbearing age, in the years 1980-2005 there were three years in which the rate increased from the year before: 1988, 1990, and 2003. In each case the increase in rate was 0.5.
According to the same data, in the twelve years of Reagan-Bush41 the rate decreased by .283 per year (from 29.3 to 25.9); in the eight years of Clinton the rate decreased by .575 per year (from 25.9 to 21.2); and in the first five years of Bush43 the rate decreased by .380 per year (from 21.3 to 19.4).
As a side observation, the abortion rate in 2005 was 19.4 and in 1974 (the first year after Roe v. Wade) it was 19.3.
The Guttmacher numbers show a steady decrease in abortions from about 1.6 million in 1990 to 1.2 million in 2005.
Interesting article in AMERICA on Archbishop Chaput:
“http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?id=2F5444FB-1321-AEAA-D3C3ABDC0D78D849″
Mr. Nickol,
About “fun”, ask a woman.
Ski trips is, as I noted, a reason given by Peter Singer.
Interesting the comments about the rate of abortions. More to the point would be a notation about the number. As we exchange comments here, there have been probably 3,000 killings of babes in the womb this day, and yesterday, and the day before, and will likely be tomorrow and the day after.
There have been a lot of distressing comment threads on dotCommonweal, but this may be the most fruitless abortion-related discussion yet. I’m going to put it out of its misery. Please do read the article!