Some readers may remember Professor Uhlmann from Gov 20; he has an excellent article out today discussing the contradictions of pro-choice Catholic Democrats and leftist politicians' general inability to address the abortion issue head-on. Here's an excerpt:
Comes now the Democrats’ vice-presidential nominee, Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware. As with Pelosi, his brand of Catholicism seems to carry with it a certain interpretative license with respect to Church teaching, especially on abortion. In Biden’s case, that means being all over the lot. When he first came to the Senate in the early 1970s, he adopted a traditional pro-life stance. After Roe v. Wade, however, his position, like that of most Catholic Democrats, began to morph into “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but….” The Senator, mind you, isn’t pro-abortion; he’s just pro-choice. You’d have to be an unborn child not to see the difference.
Read the whole thing here.
Subscribe in a reader
5 comments:
Well, I think there is a difference, if you're being sarcastic. I'm against abortions, but for a woman to have the right to choose.
It's kind of like how most Republicans are against gun violence/murder, but oppose gun control laws citing that we "have the right to bear arms".
Same thing on both sides right? We don't like death, but in both cases either side doesn't want the government mandating the right/wrong.
David,
Great find. I'm sorry I didn't find it myself! I agree with Professor Uhlmann's work, but I wonder if it isn't a tad bit dangerous to cover things from a Catholic perspective rather than as a more ecumenical approach.
I'm glad to see Catholics put the heat on one another, but I'd just as soon see all people start to question the mass abortion of an entire generation. Uhlmann's great work risks being ghettoized. Thanks for taking it to us!
Brian --
Dan has a point. Being personally against abortion but believing that women have the right to choose to have an abortion are two inconsistent positions: one directly leads to the contradiction of the other. Regardless of where you stand, the logic is obvious: allowing women to choose to have an abortion will result in abortions, which you "oppose" presumably because they are wrong.
There are lots of false analogies that liberals throw around when it comes to abortion. I'm digressing, but one of my favorites is "Conservatives are pro-life, but they're for the death penalty"; well, the logical conclusion of that one is yes, we're for innocent life, not just all life.
But back to the point about guns. There's little evidence (or at most there is mixed evidence) that gun control in fact reduces crime. Much evidence shows that allowing guns in fact helps to reduce crime! Witness the case of Australia in the late 1990s. Anyway, it's not just your analogy that is a bit weird, but also your facts are a bit off.
ack, in case I wasn't being clear I meant to add that, as Dan was suggesting, while a woman's right to choose leads directly to abortions occurring, the right to bear arms does not lead to more crime occurring -- in fact it's the opposite.
oops that last one was posted by me, sorry
Post a Comment