Thursday, June 26, 2008

Some Confused Catholics (and Protestants)

In my blog a couple days ago, I referenced a Wall Street Journal piece about Planned Parenthood and their murderous practices.

The next day, there was an opinion piece in the WSJ about Barack Obama's National Catholic Advisory Council. It referenced Planned Parenthood, as well.

For my Christian friends who are also Obama supporters, I'd encourage you to think about the issues here. If abortion is truly the taking of innocent life - and what else can it be, if life begins at conception? - then is there any issue that can outweigh this one?

If Obama were running for mayor, I'd consider voting for him. Mayors don't do much, if anything, to set abortion policy. But Presidents are another matter, altogether.

Here's the article, excerpted for brevity (you can read the whole thing here). I've bolded a few passages for emphasis.

NARAL Catholics Line Up for Obama
William McGurn
June 24, 2008; Page A17

You are the Democratic candidate for president. You want to reach out to Catholics. So what do you do when the majority of the elected officials on your National Catholic Advisory Council have the seal of approval from NARAL Pro-Choice America?

That's the position Barack Obama now finds himself in. . . .

This council does indeed include some Catholics whose pro-life credentials are impeccable, including Minnesota Congressman James Oberstar. But let us also stipulate the obvious: Of the 21 senators, congressmen and governors listed on the council's National Leadership Committee, 17 have a 90%-100% NARAL approval rating. . . .

It's not as if these NARAL scores are outliers: Sen. Obama himself boasts a 100% NARAL rating, and for good reason. In a speech before Planned Parenthood, he declared that the right to an abortion is at stake in this election, and vowed that he would not yield on appointing judges that would uphold Roe v. Wade.

Mr. Obama is for using tax dollars to fund abortions, and against restrictions on partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, he voted against legislation protecting a child who was born alive despite an abortion. In sum, if you want to know what Mr. Obama's policies mean, it's this: taxpayer-funded abortion on demand.

Not fair, complains the Obama camp. They point to statements supporting adoption. They cite the story about how he removed language about "right-wing ideologues" from one of his Web sites after a pro-life doctor complained. Above all, they say he has acknowledged a moral dimension to abortion, that he's willing to listen, and that he wants to work for fewer abortions.
. . .
The problem is that abortion is not just any issue. In the language of the church, abortion is an "intrinsic evil," always and everywhere wrong.

That is what Catholics for Obama have to get around. . . . Already Kathleen Sebelius – governor of Kansas and one of the Catholic co-chairs – has been asked by her bishop to refrain from Communion because of what he says is her support for abortion. . . .

It's not that Catholic Democrats lack a moral language. Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.), for example, is another Catholic council member who also enjoys a 100% NARAL approval rating. During recent Senate hearings, he accused oil company executives of having "all the compassion of Burmese generals."

When Mr. Durbin is willing to use similar language to describe the taking of innocent, unborn life, we'll know we have change we can believe in.

1 comment:

  1. If it weren't for their platform on abortion, I would have been a member of the Democratic Party a long time ago.

    It really is disappointing to me that Democrats assume that pro-life is a conservative stance. To me, it is beyond the usual rhetoric that I get served up from either side of the political spectrum. And I resent the perpetual tug of war, using abortion issues to capture votes. It reeks of hell.

    The "pro-choice" advocates would have us believe that if you are a poor woman of an ethnic minority, then you have a chance to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term. But they imply, for the sake of the mother, that only one choice is the best one. Their choice. This means that the lives of children in these particular circumstances are worth less than if the child was from a priviledged upper class, and most likely, white. How this arrogant line of reasoning escapes these so called compassionate liberals, Obama or otherwise, I don't know. They are so brain washed they don't know how to think for themselves. Of course, all women, of any means, should be able to keep their children, feed them and raise them with help if need be. And if necessary, there is adoptions.

    Abortion is a waste, if you ask me, of life and of what could have been a great political party.