Undermining the “Catholics for Kerry” argument

Undermining the “Catholics for Kerry” argument

The Population Research Institute offers a very good critique (not online as I write this, but will be there eventually) of the “Catholics for Kerry” claim that it is really pro-abortion Kerry who will do a better job of bringing down the number of abortions, not Bush. Interestingly, it is very similar to the “Catholics for Dean” argument.

Here it is in a nutshell: Whether a president appoints pro-lifee judges or supportsabortionm-limiting legislation is unimportant as to whether woman get abortions, but whether the president offers pregnant women “health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage.” As PRI puts it:

The implication is that voters who want to reduce the number of abortions should vote for a presidential candidate who will provide the most government programs and the strongest economy, to wit, John Kerry.

They claim that you don’t stop abortion by passing laws against it, but by regulating it and providing people with enough government programs that they won’t need it (which sounds an awful lot like neo-conservative arguments for legalization of narcotics.) The problem is that experience doesn’t bear that out.

  • Socialized medicine. Yea, China has it. Ask the women there how many children they’re ALLOWED to have.
    Remember the “stay away from my womb” pro-abort slogan?  I say that to the Kerry’s who want to control MY health care. Stay away from me. I won’t use artificial contraception and YOU won’t tell me how many children I can have.
    Bring the number of abortions down? Baloney. They will enforce abortions, bc live births would “get expensive.”
    You think I exaggerate? Call Terri Shaivo’s parents.
    Vote pro-life. Vote Bush.

  • Beleive me, I’m a hugh Bush supporter, most importantly because of the Supreme Court being key to ending abortion.  But here’s a point that I recently saw:  the number of Supr. Ct. appointments Reagan and Bush Sr made (5 justices) should be enough to overturn R v. W, but some of those justices turned out to be part of the problem, not the solution.  7 of 9 justices were nominated by republican presidents.  Clearly, any nominations W may make should be better than Kerry’s, but I am looking for a better response to this point.  That is, why vote for Bush on the basis of the supreme court nominations that are likely to come up if the nominiations his dad and RWR made haven’t done much good?

  • I should have said haven’t done much good as whole.  Obviously, some of the individual justices are great supporters of life.

  • I think it is also important to consider that societal pressure is towards abortion and therefore it is hard, as seen, to find judges who will resist that pressure.  (Just consider all the Democrats who used to be pro-life and now are ardently for abortion.)  Kerry won’t even try and he won’t have trouble finding judges who will be awful, or getting them confirmed.  In other words Bush may have trouble, but Kerry won’t have the opposite trouble. 

  • Everything about Kerry is a trick…the only treats are for the hard left.

    When you think about it..a website called catholics for kerry is a bit strange.