Vice-presidential debate moderator Martha Raddatz, who had gained an admirable reputation for her coverage of Iraq war, saved one of her best questions for last, a self-definition question that makes the candidate dig into his soul and come up with something both credible and politically prudent. Both men had presented themselves as Catholics and, we can presume, were selected as candidates to attract the Catholic vote. But, as many journalists have noticed, they represent two wings of the Catholic church. She asked, What role did your religion play in your personal views on abortion?
I had prepared for the debate by reading “On all our shoulders: A Catholic Call to Protect the Endangered Common Good,” a six page document signed by over 150 prominent Catholic scholars from universities all over the country, including many Jesuit schools, which explains the individualistic and anti-government philosophy of Ayn Rand, which Representative Paul Ryan has declared his own and which is contrary to Catholic moral teaching.
They list five principles of Catholic social teaching of which few citizens are aware. 1. The human person is social, not individual. 2. Government has an essential role in promoting the common good. 3. Subsidiarity means that government must act when local communities cannot solve their problems. 4. The “preferential option for the poor” demands both individual and collective action. 5. Economic forces — globalization, deregulation, attacks on unions — can threaten human dignity. I wish the participants had read this document.
Congressman Ryan began by describing his trip to the hospital to see the ultrasound picture of their firstborn child. That’s why he’s pro-life. He said Governor Romney would oppose abortion except for cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother. (He did not mention that Romney had added “health of the mother,” which would have been a very big loop hole, but Romney may have subtracted that recently.) He then attacked the Obama administration for denying religious freedom to the Catholic Church and criticized Biden for not chiding the Chinese, during a visit there, for their one-child policy.
Here both Raddatz and Biden passed up the opportunity to ask whether Romney or Ryan would go to China and chastise them for their one-child policy.
Vice President Biden said that his religion defines who he is, and the church had formed his social justice doctrine. “The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can’t take care of themselves.” Meanwhile he accepts the church’s judgment that life begins at conception, but refuses to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews. He repeated the mantra of the “pro-choice” movements that women have an absolute right to control their own bodies.
Biden should have turned to the Democratic platform, which certainly backs the right to abortion but also makes the case that abortion is basically an economic problem. Women are more willing to bear a child when they know they have financial resources to care for it.
The position that grants absolute power to the mother to kill her child in the womb treats a child like property, to be discarded like a garment that has gone out of style. His or her future also belongs to the community, which has an obligation to welcome the child into its midst. At the same time, Biden (or Raddatz) should have asked Ryan, If abortion is outlawed what punishment should the law impose? If it is really “murder” those states with the death penalty, logically, could send either the mother or the abortionist to death row. I have yet to hear a Catholic spokesman spell out how the mother and doctor should be penalized.
One exception. Frank Canavan, S.J., a conservative political science professor at Fordham with whom I often disagreed, writing in the National Review, proposed a law that would deny financial payment to any doctor who performed an abortion. Doctors, he argued, are very attached to their fees. Few would perform that operation as an act of pure charity.
Raymond A. Schroth, S.J.
For very obvious political reasons Joe Biden as the Democratic party VP nominee showed himself to be a completely loyal Democrat on the subject of abortion. A majority of the Democratic party base has been solidly pro-abortion for years, But this year in the 2010 Democratic Party Platform the Democratic party went on record for the expansion of number or abortions by calling for the first time goverenment funding of abortions to anyone who could not affort an abortion.. In other words the mosr radical abortion proposal of abortion on demand. Now for the first time reflecting the political composition of the Democratic party, the democratic party calls for taxpayer financing of abortion on demand. As a loyal Democrat and VP nominee Joe Biden supports this radical expansion of the number and frequency of abortions under the guies as another governemnt programs for the poor and needy. But this is a false way to serve the poor and the needy. And it is not Catholic.
But Father Schoth analysis fails to mention Joe Biden also deliveing a very significant pro-abortion political message in response to the question on abortion. Biden warned the audience that a Romney adminstration would appoint Supreme Court Justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that makes abortions legal nationwide. Biden stated a Obama adminstration would not appoint appoint Supreme Court Justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Biden actively protected the Obama admistrations as protector of the statue quo on abortion.
If Roe v. Wade was overturned the legal decision on abortions would be returned to the states where some states would make abortions legal and some states would not. Prohibiting abortions is easily enforced by temporary or permanent revolkiing of a doctor.s liscense or the liscese(s) of other participating medical professional. of course performing an abortion without a valid liscense is currently a criminal act in most states as well as a very bad idea morally and otherwise.
Politics is the art of getting elected. When you ask a politician about his faith, he tells you what his handlers told him will help him get elected. It's not going to be inspiring.
Are there any saints who were politicians? I don't mean Thomas More, I mean any saint who ever ran for office and got elected?
Thank you very much. I didn't know that.
No that is not what I believe. I'm not sure when a fetus becomes a "person" but I'm not for abortion, I wouldn't ever have one myself. But I think crinminalizing it will only cause more problems than it will solve.
Millions of unborn children are being killed by friendly fire from the so-called "pro-life" movement. A very large component of the "pro-life" movement is determined to frame abortion as radical feminist brief-case-carrying baby-hating orc-women perpetrating mayhem on their progeny for the fun of it or at least out of un-Marian enthusiasm for professional ambition. This bizarre neurosis prevents them from supporting simple obvious expedients which could reduce abortion enormously even in the present legal situation.
The briefcase-carrying she-orcs don't really have many abortions; she-orcs know how to use birth control. Most abortions are performed on ordinary, working women who like babies, don't mind being pregnant and could easily be persuaded to have another child. Most of them have genuinely lousy jobs, which they hate. Offer them a modest child-support payment for the period during which the child is resident in utero and 90% of them will jump at the chance.
But as long as abortion is just some sick male political psycho-drama about pushing women around and putting them in handcuffs and locking them up in jail and intimidating them into terrible marriages to, who knows what, punish them for having sex? show them who's boss? avenge yourself on the girl who got into Princeton instead of you? As long as that's what it is, the "pro-life" movement is just as hypocritical as Joe Biden.
The growth of abortion is avoidable.. But as the article and comments show abortions are being intellectualized and rationized in marxist terms as a necessary way of assisting the poor and needy with the Democratic party leading the way for expansion of abortions by governement financing and new governemnt programs.
Catholics are not doing thier part in keeping government from financing abortions. Ironically the overwhelming majority of Americans do not want abortions fianced by the governement. Abortions should not be allowed to become another entitlement.. But elements in the Church make the simple task of saying no to abortions impossible by rationalizing that becasue people are poor or needy abortions should be provided to them. Fuzzy materialistic thinking by Catholic intellectuals make abortions a solution for poverty rather than see abortion as a morally objectionalbe and destructive action. taking of life action that should not be expanded by goverenmnt financing. Catholics are not alert to the immeadiate poltical moves being made to mpleement government sponsored abortion on demand.
This does not dismiss addressing the related issues of poverty, the stigma of illegitimacy, a fatherless household, hardship, the lack of faith and the Western liberal secular culture.
As many have pointed out, we live in a pluraistic society where abortion is legal. Until the belief that life begins at conception is embraced by science, the non-religious, and socieity, and we continue to separate a "right to choose" from "the killing of an innocent person", then the law will continue to facilitate abortions.
Ryan likely favors appealing Roe v. Wade than Biden. Whether that will ever happen is anyone's guess. In the meantime, we can only hope that certain forms of abortion are made illegal (e.g., late term and for the sex of the child which is hard to prove) and make widely available generous govenment-funded pregnancy and adoption benefits. Ditto for contraception with exceptions for religious freedom. At least the number of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies can be significantly reduced in our multi-religious, multi-cultural society.
Procuring an abortion carries an automatic excommunication for Catholics, and cannot at all be equated an adjustment of tax rates or sending certain entitlements to the states.
As regards the Chinese policy, it wasn't that Biden didn't criticize it. He said: “But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I'm not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you're in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.”
Listen to his use of the economic terms ''safety net'' and “sustainability,” as if the murder of millions for the sole reason they are females deserved the criticism that it was unsustainable. As I said before, the definition of a cynic is knowing the price of everything and the true value of nothing.
Crystal #8
Less than 1% of abortions are done for the health of the mother. Would you be willing to fine doctors who performed abortions on completely healthy women for the sole reason that the fetus was female? What an inversion of feminism!
Or what about the women survivors of abortion attempts on their lives? Here are three examples. Couldn’t we at least promise them full healthcare if they get past the abortionist’s scalpel? The Democrats wouldn’t even do that: Melissa Ohden’s story. Claire Culwell’s story. Gianna Jessen’s story.
Consider that Biden is pro-choice for others, but is pro-life with circumstances for himself. Biden also supports the continuation of Roe v. Wade, while Ryan is likely for over-turning it.
The best argument for government reform is Tim's suggestion with expansion. The government should fund the cost of full health care coverage for pre-natal, delivery and post-natal care, as well as salary continuance for 6 weeks (if employed), unemployment benefits (for those unemployed) and welfare income benefits (for those on welfare) who decide to carry the fetus to term and give the child up for adoption. If there are adopton costs, the govenment should cover this as well. At least that would be a good first step in the right direction.
Overturning Roe v. Wade may not ocurr in the immediate future, making punitive consequences against physicians (license revocation or non-reimbursement for abortion services) wishful thinking.
Frankly, I think Biden disrespects the Catholic Church's social teachings more than Ryan. While Ryan's economic plan is not perfect, it is also not completely clear it is Romney's plan. Obama's economic plan will be more of the same failed policies. As Biden said (in paraphrase), the middle class have been buried for the past 4 years. Will someone tell Biden that his administration has been in charge for the past 4 years.
The Catholic Church should put forth a responsible and realistic economic plan and not just criticism in abstraction. Offering guiding principles is a good thing but it is not good when such principles and conclusions about candidates are based on incomplete facts and misinformation. As Cardinal Ratzinger once said, a candidate is not defined by one issue because there are many important issues that define a candidate. There are few political candidates that completely agree with the Church teachings. Some are pro-life but are for same sex marriage. Some are pro-choice but are for more money for the poor. Some are pro-life (abortion with circumstances) but are for contraception but not a mandate, while others are pro-life and for a contraception mandate. Hence, the principle of proportionality must be exercised based on full knowledge of all issues. In the end, there are few right or wrong decisions when it comes to voting.
What we need is a balanced and practical appraisal of each candidate's position. I don't believe the Church is doing that. When it comes to politics, many will see what they want to see in any debate or argument.
Don't you know that the majority of prolife activists are women? And the subset of women who have had a child are the most pro-life of all. Most men are pro-abortion. Violence as a method of solving obstacles is definitely more on the male side. It is men who accompany their girlfriends (soon to be ex-girlfriends) to the abortuary and even pay the killer. It is men who gain the most in their sex lives by the free license of abortion.
Note that all my witnesses in #10 above are women (I hope people clicked the links and didn't just avoid their powerful testimony). Am I to suppose that these women should not have been protected by law, that they are just acceptable casualties of sexual freedom? Shouldn't we at least protect anyone who is in the third trimester? Will any pro-choice politician support a law to stop 3rd trimester abortions? Even that?
I am all for economic and other support for pregnant women to carry their baby to term. Most prolife people are (note Birthright, Project Rachel, Feminists for Life, etc.).
I also agree that a legal protection for the unborn is still far off, and even if enacted, will only be successful at the margins. And this election will at best have only modest impact for the prolife movement. In the end, like slavery, this horror will only end when hearts and minds are changed. But, like slavery, the pro-choice position in our laws is a contradiction to our humanity. Laws against murder do not stop murder. But, we still need laws against murder.
Crystal #11
An abortionist is one who earns his/her living by doing abortions, not an occasional one for ''hard'' cases, but as a primary part of their practice. The Hippocratic oath abjures abortion and euthanasia. Doctors can be evil to. Dr. Mengele took it before he turned Nazi. Dr. Bernard Nathanson aborted thousands before he converted. You should read his testimony. http://www.lifenews.com/2011/02/28/bernard-nathanson-a-life-transformed-by-truth-on-abortion/
As far as I can tell, both sides collude in permitting a million abortions a year. There are a lot of things that could be done that would dramatically decrease the incidence of abortion. But the left thinks the abortion issue is about sex (which they support), while the right thinks it's about feminism (which they oppose.) While the adults fight and vent and rage about their adult preoccupations, the unborn just keep getting thrown under the bus. That's why there are a million abortions a year.
For my money, neither side should be going to communion. If Biden refuses to consider legislative restrictions on abortion because he's afraid of offending his Hollywood donors, he should refrain. If Ryan refuses to support government spending to support unborn children and their mothers because he's afraid of offending the religious right, he should refrain too.
Pace Professor Aquinas, almost no phenomenon has one unique cause. Ordinarily, several conditions have to be met before a thing can happen. Abortion happens because both sides find it more convenient than some very obvious alternatives.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-limits-freedom-on-abortion-contraception/article/2510781#.UH1jsPl27zh.
It is very simplistic and totally misleading to say that the pro-lifers (female or only male?) are solely against abortion because they are against feminism. When it is the case, it is more the other way around - the problem with a strain of feminism is that it's central tenet is abortion!
Your argument is on par with saying the evangelical abolitionists of slavery were really only interested in bringing down the South’s agricultural system. Or that Abraham Lincoln only opposed slavery to get elected. Completely backwards, and you know it! You are demeaning the nobility of the cause for the sake of maintaining the status quo.
I for one would be all for supporting a pro-life women for President or any office, and, would gladly follow a women who showed a similar zeal for the unborn girls (and boys) that Martin Luther King, Jr. showed for civil rights of African Americans (and others). And I do support every non-legislative means to support women to bring their baby to term, as I know most pro-life men and women do.
The throwaway argument you make that both Biden and Ryan should refrain from communion (I don’t think you really believe that), captures the crux of the problem on this site regarding abortion. The moral equivalence is the essence of the duplicity. There is of course not a scintilla of evidence that Ryan would do anything that would harm the care of pregnant women. This is all a façade to keep the abortion-industrial complex in power.