So is McCain as "Pro Choice" as Obama- The Silly Federalism Argument

One of the Contributors at Vox Nova has done another post on abortion, politics, and a Catholic responsibility.

Now he informs us that if Obama gets into the office his pledge to sign the Freedom of Choice of Act is about likely as to happen as there would be Right to Life Amendment. Well the post is titled clarity but let me say that is NOT CLEAR AT ALL. Again the Bishops across this country basically besides hitting with a huge ole piece of plywood are telling us that VOTING FOR OBAMA / BIDEN is a big ole problem.

However there is part of this I want to hit on. Basically it is that strange Kmiec argument she is making. That is because McCain/ Palin want to return the discussion to abortion back to the states well they are in pro choice just like Obama but in a different way so it makes no difference.(see last paragraph)

Well hopefully any Catholic that had any High School Civics education (do they still teach that?) would know this is a load of balderdash. Morning Minion calls this a "warped subsidiarity". Goodness.

There was a contributor the Catholic America election blog that pretty much took apart this argument. Again I am surprised people can say it with a straight face.

The question is whether a Catholic “should” support Obama. And Kmiec has for a while been deploying several arguments to convince Catholics that they “should” support Obama over McCain. Michael refers to one argument when he mentions Kmiec’s claim that both Obama and McCain are pro-choice, and neither candidate’s pro-choice position fully accords with Catholic teaching. He has made this argument before.

He argues that Obama believes the “decision” about abortion is the mother’s to make, while John McCain believes the “decision” belongs with the states, rather than the federal government, to legislate on abortion; in other words McCain advocates Federalism.

Kmiec then concludes that as both are “pro-choice,” differing merely on the locus of the choice, the individual or the state, neither position fully accords with Catholic teaching. “Neither candidate presents a position fully compatible with Catholic teaching recognizing abortion for the intrinsic evil that it is.”

The conclusion is that the voter is confronted with an option between two pro-choice candidates.But this argument is plainly fallacious, as it equivocates on the terms ‘decision’ and ‘choice’.

Who isn’t pro-choice if being pro-choice means being in favor of choice on something or another? Everyone is “pro-choice” about whether to eat the vegetables at dinner. The Church is “pro-choice” if you are talking about the right of parents to choose the setting of their children’s education.

Decisions and choices are defined by their objects—what are they about? Obama’s position is that the decision to have an abortion is a legitimate moral choice made by an individual that must be protected from any interference by any governmental entity. The relevant choice that he is “pro” with respect to is the beginning of an act of abortion. And Kmiec understates the point when he says that Obama’s position is not “fully compatible with” Catholic teaching—it is fully incompatible with Catholic teaching.

McCain’s position is that the decisions about how to legislate concerning abortion reside with the states.
The relevant choice that he is “pro” with respect to is an act of a government that brings about a law, not an act that brings about an abortion. And one can maintain that certain legislative acts belong to the states without being committed to the rightness of every legislative act.

So I may think that the choice to determine educational standards belongs with the states, and still think that the actual standards chosen by a state are bad.

McCain’s position is entirely consistent with maintaining that the failure of states to legislate restrictions on abortion is a failure to protect the common good; Obama’s position is not.

Indeed, McCain has consistently voted against pro-choice legislation and for pro-life legislation, while the reverse holds true of Obama.

Kmiec would be hard pressed to detail just where the Catholic Church teaches against Federalism; indeed the Church’s teaching on subsidiarity resonates strongly with Federalism.

So it is simply false and misleading to suggest that McCain’s position is “not fully compatible with” Catholic teaching. Obama’s position is that our federal constitutional order can, does, and should exclude a class of human beings from the protection of law, while McCain’s position is that it should not. This is a difference of justice at the foundation of any social order; one position destroys the conditions necessary for the common good, while the other does not. It is difficult to imagine what proportionate reasons there are for ignoring a position that destroys the conditions necessary for the common good. Thus it is specious to suggest that both are “pro-choice” in the sense relevant to the question “should a Catholic support him?”

Is this clear!!! I guess this line of reasoning would have been clear to a Catholic Educated boy of immigrant parents raised in Irish Channel in the 50's but perhaps now it is not.