Catholic newspaper: Romney is the real pro-abortion candidate

Some remarkable stuff.

According to the parallel magisterium, it is also a doctrine of the faith that Obama is pro-abortion and Romney is pro-life, and the church and its bishops and cardinals can associate only with the latter and not the former.
“Let me say a few things about that comparison. First of all, I don’t know anyone who is pro-abortion. Think about what that word means. It means you favor women becoming pregnant so you can help them abort their child and maybe profit from it. It is an ugly word, and it is used to emotionalize the debate when what we are really talking about is people who do not favor criminalizing abortion because they believe criminal statutes are ineffective ways to solve social evils. This makes them pro-choice, not pro-abortion….

Obama favors, and included in the Affordable Care Act, $250 million of support for vulnerable pregnant women and alternatives to abortion. This support will make abortions much less likely, since most abortions are economic. Romney, on the other hand, has endorsed Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan’s budget, which will cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of the federal plans that support poor women. The undoubted effect: The number of abortions in the United States will increase. On these facts, Obama is much more pro-life than Romney.

I was especially please to see a Catholic newspaper distinguishing ‘pro-abortion’ and ‘pro-choice’, and to see the attention to economic matters.

Thanks, T!

3 thoughts on “Catholic newspaper: Romney is the real pro-abortion candidate

  1. National Catholic Reporter is a relatively progressive newspaper. It often features the social activist part of the Church, which is often impressive.

  2. I’m not sure how progressive it is, but notwithstanding its name I understand the National Catholic Reporter has gained a reputation for heterodoxy. At any rate, though, the argument was incorrectly attributed to the paper, as it was not an editorial but an individual commentary by someone involved in campaigning for Obama’s re-election.

    Mr. Cafardi must already know that “pro-abortion” is a term of art that means, in context, “pro-legalized abortion”; I think that’s reasonably well established. If one wanted similarly to ignore usage, I daresay one would also be able to construct an argument that Romney is the real “pro-choice” candidate, which I expect would incur as much ridicule and opprobrium from pro-choicers as I anticipate Cafardi’s argument will incur from Catholics and other pro-lifers.

    But more to the point, there is something at best faintly absurd about Cafardi’s assertion that what his co-religionists, or at least fellow pro-lifers, “are really talking about is people who do not favor criminalizing abortion because they believe criminal statutes are ineffective ways to solve social evils.” Can Cafardi possibly think that the pro-choice camp is essentially made of up people who view abortion as a social evil in its own right but oppose its criminalization simply on the basis that it’s an ineffective way to solve it ( much less that they disavow penal sanctions with respect to social evils generally). That seems naïf, or rather faux–naïf.

    I leave it to the political press to debate Cafardi’s characterizations of ACA, his prognostications about future abortions, his vague Bain-related attacks and his dubious use of the word “facts”. But I find it hard to believe that the arguments he offers would be accepted by any of his co-religionists not already committed to voting for Obama (assuming that any of them read the National Catholic Reporter).

Comments are closed.