The Weekly Standard reports that John Kerry accepted $7,000 in donations from three men who are the leading practitioners of partial-birth abortion in the country. But, of course, Catholics for Kerry say it’s perfectly acceptable for Catholics to vote for such a man who takes blood money like this, and more importantly, has consistently voted to keep every possible abortion legal over the past 20 years.
I might have posted this recently, but some people’s stupidity bears repeating. I had a patient recently who informed me that John Kerry is pro-life. I was like, “How do you figure that?” Her response: “Well, he has said so on many occasions.”
Uh-huh.
Maybe he was prolife before he wasn’t prolife (which I believe he was).
It is true that Bush is more pro-life than Kerry. However, it looks like Bush does support the funding of birth control pills, which often results in a form of abortion, known as “chemical abortion.” So if you are voting for Bush, would you not be voting (perhaps not deliberately or willingly, but only remotely or indirectly) to fund “chemical abortion,” which results in the killing of innocent life in the womb of the mother? You don’t have to rely on the BBC for this, as it is known that the pill does sometimes result in chemcal abortions. Here is part of an article which appeared on the BBC:
“Pill propelled into abortion debate
By Jill McGivering
BBC correspondent in Washington
The birth control pill revolutionised women’s health –
and grew to become one of the most popular forms of
family planning. But it is now under attack from pro-
life groups in the US.
The birth control pill does not always
prevent ovulation
A growing number of doctors and pharmacists are now
refusing to dispense it, on the grounds that it is actually a
form of abortion.
Pro-choice groups fear this new moral objection to the Pill
could lead to more unplanned pregnancies, even more
abortions.
A woman taking the Pill does not usually release eggs. But
occasionally she might – and it is possible that egg could be
fertilised.
The hormonal conditions created by the Pill mean, if that
happened, the fertilised egg would not be implanted or
survive.
Mainstream medicine does not define that as a pregnancy.
But some of those strictly against abortion do.
Dr Cynthia Jones-Nosacek – a family doctor in Milwaukee –
now refuses to prescribe the Pill. She opposes it on moral
grounds, arguing it is a form of abortion.
“The contraceptive pill doesn’t always prevent ovulation. As
often as 30% of the time, ovulation may occur and if that
happens, fertilisation may occur,” Dr Jones-Nosacek says.
“Then there are other mechanisms that can prevent that
being from surviving. It’s called a chemical abortion.”
“
This is why Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter to the US bishops spoke of “proportionate reasons.” Since Bush is better on abortion than Kerry, although not perfect, it is okay to vote for him. (I’ve oversimplified it, but that’s essentially what he’s saying.)
I know I will get into trouble with this purely hypothetical post, but I have a feeling that the idea of “proportionate reasons” could open up a can of worms. For example, I saw an advertisement in a Catholic newspaper for a candidate for president (let’s say candidate C) who says he is 100% pro-life without any exceptions whatsoever. It seems to me that if the innocent life of a child is of prime and utmost importance to an individual voter, then that voter would vote for this third party candidate. But let’s suppose that he decides to vote instead for a candidate (say candidate B) who is mostly pro-life and only for abortions in limited circumstances, and the voter then justifies this on the grounds of proportionate reasoning. I see a slight problem here and a slippery road ahead. Suppose, for example, that there are two major candidates for a public office, candidate A and candidate B. Suppose then that B is mostly pro-life, but is in favor of certain forms of abortion, such as in the case of rape or incest, and is in favor of funding certain types of birth control, such as the pill and the IUV, which sometimes may cause chemical or other types of abortions. On the other hand, candidate B is opposed to the positon of the Catholic Pope on mostly all social issues, including the war in Iraq. Now suppose that candidate A is very much opposed to abortion personally, and has promised to do all he can to promote and support adoptions of unwanted children, say by giving huge tax breaks to the foster parents, etc. Also, he promises to encourage women to have their children. On the other hand, since he believes that the decision of the Supreme Court is the Law of the Land, and his political position is that he will uphold all the laws on abortion rights, since they have been supported by the Supreme Court . At the same time, he supports the Pope and the position of the Church on Iraq and in all of the other social issues.
Now if there is a proportionate reason to support candidate B over candidate C, would there also be a proportionate reason to support candidate A over candidate B ? This is a hypoithetical question, which I am raising here, in order to get a better understanding of the meaning of the term: “proportionate reasoning.”