Tom and Jerry: Defenders of All Things Right and Good

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

So I Lathered Him With Me Shillelagh...

As I announced in the headline of my last post, I had intended to refrain from any more political posts, at least for the remainder of the year. I had outlined my position as clearly as I could, and felt that any more ruminations on the wrecking ball that an Obama presidency promises to be would only be an exercise in this:

However, Tom sent me (and a few others) this email on Sunday:
Subject: Can Pro-Life Catholics Vote for Obama and Other Democrats?

This guy says you can:

I may be wasting my time arguing with these guys, but it is helping me understand my position more clearly. Feel free to weigh in.

Echoing Michael Corleone in Godfather III, "I got out, but they pulled me back in..." My response:


Ugh. He even brought out the ol' "Seamless Garment" line.

A brief fisking of one paragraph will illustrate the fault(s) in his position:

All of this said, there may be non-restrictive means of reducing abortion rates.
[There also may be non-law-enforcement ways of stopping homicide. I don't know of any that have actually worked]. One of the conditions for the possibility of building a pro-life consensus in a pluralistic democracy would be to reduce the demand for abortion. [Putting the cart before the horse here. First he wants to reduce the demand for abortion, which he then claims will cause a change in people's beliefs. Would not a more sensible argument be that a change in beliefs would trigger a demand for abortion? To assert such backward reasoning as a premise statement does not bode well for the rest of his argument]. Barack Obama promises to try to reduce abortion rates by non-restrictive means. ['Promise' is certainly a stretch. In the face of criticism about his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Act and concern over his promise to remove any and all restrictions against abortion, he has hypothesized that his policies will nevertheless cause a decrease in abortions, a hypothesis that this article is attempting to flesh out]. Some statistics indicate that up to seventy percent of abortions are driven by economic decisions. [Yes, and some statistics show that global temperatures have increased as the numbers of pirates worldwide has decreased. It may be true, but no one with any amount of common sense would say a dwindling number of pirates is driving worldwide temperatures. Likewise, nobody with any amount of life experience would buy that '70% of abortions are driven by economic concerns'. More likely, THE primary reason for a woman choosing abortion is "I don't really want this baby", and any economic concerns are voiced primarily in justification and/or support of their decision. I would further venture that there is a percentage of women who, when learning they're pregnant, think to themselves "I would really love to have this baby, but I can't afford to raise it. My only option is abortion.", but that it is extremely less than 70%]. Might a combination of economic justice initiatives [Pardon me if the term 'economic justice' makes my blood run cold. 'Economic justice' from the mouth of the Obamessiah, according to his own words, means using the progressive tax system as an engine for wealth redistribution, which is about as economically unjust and un-American as one can get] and better education efforts (including abstinence training) decrease abortion rates? Might the late Cardinal Bernadine's "seamless garment" argument for a consistent ethic of life be more persuasive in forming a culture of life? [Ah yes, the 'seamless garment' argument. Nevermind that Obama takes a set of fabric shears to the 'conception-to-birth' swath of fabric, shreds the 'don't create life to destroy it' section of cloth with his planned support for the as-yet unsuccessful and completely unneccessary embrionic stem cell research, with a likely scissoring of the 'natural death' end of the fabric in the future. Nevermind that his proposed tax increases on "big corporations" will include pharaceutical companies, which will only drive up the cost of pre- and post-natal care. The garment you have left might be seamless, but it is in tatters] Might this ethic be more consistent with the whole of Catholic social justice teaching? Isn’t the consistent ethic of life implied in Pope John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae? [Sure, if you conveniently ignore that the right to life is not merely "one life issue among many" but is the foundation of all other human rights. More accurately, he is simply invoking the squishy term 'social justice' to justify supporting a candidate who advocates abortion-on-demand, tolerates infanticide, and eagerly advances a purely socialistic tax policy].

I could do the above with any paragraph in the article, especially his forays into what certain saints may or may not have thought about the moment of ensoulment and his laughable (and thankfully brief, as to not further embarrass himself) defense of recent words on the abortion subject from Pelosi and Biden. However, I can only deal with so much disingenuousness
on any given day.

Love and kisses,


Horse thoroughly beaten.

Labels: , ,


  • I have spent far too much time commenting on Joe Ceicil's (aka Liberal Catholic News) blog. Follow the link in the above post (or this one) if you'd like to read our dialectic.

    By Blogger Tom, at Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:50:00 PM  

  • Dear Jerry,
    Hurrah again! Reading through Ceicil's paragraphs was akin to having my nails torn off. His long-winded article was nothing more than an attempt to bring Catholics to the 'liberal point of view'...of course he states that at the top. Your rebuttal was brilliant. Glad you broke your silence.
    May God have mercy on these types!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:39:00 PM  

  • How there can be a moral equivalence between, say, a higher minimum wage or an increase in union membership and child murder is beyond me.

    By Blogger BettyL, at Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:01:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home