Right, Deal. I found Kelly's appointment - and the opposition of Abortion-is-no-big-deal advocates - a rather encouraging sign that maybe, just maybe, Pres. Obama is taking seriously his "every abortion is a tragedy - reduce the numbers" rhetoric. It gives me heart - especially after reports that Melody Barnes was attempting to change the language of "reduce the number of abortions" to "reduce the need for abortion" (as in, "I need a boy and this is a girl.") I am not surprised, rather encouraged, that a group like Catholics for Choice opposes Kelly ... since abortion advocates like CfC and PP want to normalize abortion as a regular, run-of-the-abortion-mill sort of decision which increase in frequency signals women exercising freedom rather than murdering unborn.

So, why aren't pro-lifers happy with the choice of Alexia Kelly?

Whatever one thinks of President Obama, I think people need to be realistic; Obama is unlikely to choose someone who opposed him in the campaign season. Kelly seems a good choice. No one is perfect, but I think she is sufficiently Catholic, and I do think she is committed to Catholic teachings (not necessarily focused on abortion, but not everyone will be).

" I think she is sufficiently Catholic.." is that anything like sufficient enough of salt on the wound ? I don't know what this means, even Jesus objects to those lukewarm in faith.

Joe

Don't judge others upon your own understanding of how we should act; no one will ever live up to it, especially yourself.

well, if it comes across as a judgement, well, I guess 99% of the observations on any commentary blogs are. But I still dont understand what sufficiently Catholic is ? Is it like being a cultural Catholic ? an Eastern Orthodox ? a Coptic ? A person who has been babptized but not confirmed ? What does it mean ?

Plus, her work is as a Catholic, and being consistent in trying to be Catholic, whether or not you agree with her politics. Again, the best response is to see that being a Catholic, being a follower of Christ, will lead to different directions, and prudence will lead people in different ways. Someone can be wrong in their prudential decision and still a good Catholic. Or someone could be right, and not. It is more complicated than "did they follow my political ideal?" The real world is far more complex. And while some people might not like the fact that political decisions are not so simple, and material cooperation is not the equivalent of formal cooperation, what she said was valid and found in the writings of bishops around the world. I would suggest the better thing to do is to have an intra-ecumenism within Catholicism at this point. We need to learn to work with each other, despite differences, and this will help work to make people from different positions find more than just common ground, but to reconsider ideas and work for something new. We need the new. We need reform. Today. All of us.

It is absolutely unrealistic to expect Pres. Obama, who believes in the right to an abortion, to appoint someone who would contradict that belief. But, it is highly encouraging to me that he has met those who oppose abortion rights half-way with this choice. That is more than Pres. Clinton did and more than could be expected. Any umbrage about this appointment by Deal Hudson and his minions is purely political; it's a scorched-Earth policy that will waste a perfectly good moment for progress. In that way, it's destructive and selfish. What a shame.

The author forfeits the opportunity to be taken seriously right at the beginning of his article. After all, it's a breathtakingly illogical leap to compare the appointment of Alexia Kelley to the lauding of George Tiller.

What is clear:

(1) Deal is dispensing with reason and argument, once again, to make a Randall Terry-style appeal to raw emotion.

(2) He can't see past the Republican talking points to the obvious good of having a pro-life Catholic in the administration.

Kelley represents the hope that, in line with the President's common-ground rhetoric, concrete progress can be made in the national tragedy of abortions. It seems to irk the Catholic far right that she lacks the will and interest to be sucked into the manifestly useless culture wars of past decades.

No one is perfect, but I think she is sufficiently Catholic, and I do think she is committed to Catholic teachings (not necessarily focused on abortion, but not everyone will be).

In better days, she'd have been excommunicated for defending the monster Obama.

Now, we have fallen so far and so fast that such a woman is capable of being described as being committed to Catholic teachings.

Hmm, interesting. There are some names in the comments here that haven't appeared on here since the '08 campaign. I'd like to give Kelley the benefit of the doubt, as William R S and Marjorie Campbell are doing, but knowing all too well that many of the posters defending Kelley now also parroted her rhetoric during the '08 campaign only to out themselves as pro-aborts and pro-contraceptive "Catholics" later, I'd be silly not to have some reservations, no?

That being said, I really DO hope that Kelley is pro-life. If she is, she'll be able to at least halter what would otherwise be an absolutely disastrous 4 years under that sicko HHS Secretary Sebelius...

I suppose the best option is to "wait-and-see." She's apparently in charge of "family planning" funding, no? We'll be able to figure out just how orthodox she is based on what she does with that $$$$.

While Deal can certainly defend his own writings, I think some have missed the point of the article. For many years there have been those on the Left who, while supporting their por=abortion politicians, have "lamented" the reality of abortion and argued that we need to change the"circumstances in society" that lead to abortion (read - spend more money on social welfare, family planning programs, etc.). In that camp are the "reduce the need for" group and "reduce the number" group, both of whom "claim" that abortion is regrettable and we should creat an environment that will lessen abortion.

But then one also finds those who "like" abortion, who want abortion as a part of "mainstream" medicine, and who bristle at the notion that what is done in an abortion is at all wrong.

These are the real bottom feeders of the pro-abortion camp. These are the Carharts and the Tillers and the Kisslings. This philosophy propels Planned Parenthood, NARAL, National Abortion Federation and the infamous "femi-nazis."

Deal is asking some interesting questions as he explores the differences in the cams. Is it more territorial or is it philosophical? Is Obama being crafty or does he not want to appear even more radical than he truly is? Is her appointment part of the long term strategy to divide Catholics as was so successfully done in the 2008 elections?

Like Deal or not, his inquiry is most appropriate as people attempt to read the tea leaves about this administration.

Obama no doubt accepted money for his campaign from the
pro-abort lobby, so he will pay them back at some point.
He will not for example, appoint a judicial nominee who
would overturn Roe v. Wade.
He may walk the middle of the road as far as image is
concerned and talk and look somewhat prolife. But no matter
how the media packages it, abortion will not be threatened
by Obama.

I completely agree John that Deal's touched on some issues which have long percolated on the "pro-choice" side of the table - and perhaps are just now becoming more broadly apparent. Most radical feminists have never seen an abortion that they did not support - and many population control advocates long for increasing numbers of abortions to battle the epidemic known as human life. Among these groups hide some number of Catholics, including Catholics for Choice (who, I am not Spartacus, has publicly pleaded for the Male Oppressor Bishops to initiate excommunication proceedings against her.) The bulk of these radical abortion pushers - whose denial of fetal life and alarmingly cruel/commercial interest in the "by-product" of abortion - took cover behind the "pro-choice" rhetoric a couple of decades ago when the abortion carnage mounted to point of public repulsion. I, personally, was grateful from the get-go for Pres. Obama's publicly expressed opinion that abortion is a moral tragedy and the numbers should be reduced (as opposed to abortion as a medical procedure just like an other and the numbers simply don't matter). It was forseeable that this divide would occur on the "pro-choice" side of this issue IF Pres. Obama was sincere and could/can hold his position against the very formidable pro-abortion lobby camouflaged behind the rhetoric of choice. This is why I found the Kelly appointment encouraging. This woman will need all the prayers she can get to hold her ground, since the pro-abortion group is really one of the more heartless, brutal social movements I've seen.

I think the President truly does believe abortion is an issue with moral gravity, and would like to see a reduction in its frequency. However, what he has made absolutely clear (especially during his campaign) is that he does not believe it is the business of the state to interfere in what he regards as an ultimately personal decision. (This distinction seems to have been overlooked by some pro-lifers, who accuse Obama of betraying his abortion-reduction promise by repealing the Mexico City Policy and the Dorman Amendment, when in fact he is simply doing what anyone who precisely understood his beliefs could have predicted.) So I don't find Kelley's appointment surprising at all, since the de facto position of Catholics in Alliance - which has focused on reducing the demand for abortion through social services, while skirting the issue of abortion's legality - seems entirely consistent with Obama's position.

Second, you are absolutely right about the internal fault line within the pro-choice movement. Those furthest to the Left are naturally concerned with claiming the "moral high ground" in the abortion debate, and realize that in able to do so they must deny that there is anything regrettable about abortion. They are [link="http://tinyurl.com/lap3ep"]not happy with Obama's remarks on "common ground,"[/link], claiming that by calling for abortion reduction he is capitulating to the pro-life belief that there is something inherently wrong with abortion, and that true reproductive justice for women will mean more abortions, not fewer. Thankfully, this view seems at odds with the beliefs of most Americans, a great many of whom (if polls are any indication) do appear to have moral qualms about abortion even when they are reluctant to support anti-abortion legislation.

An excellent article about the factions within the pro-abortion camp. This fracturing should not be unexpected. When a cause is fighting uphill, it can stay together as long as it has a common enemy. For the pro-abortion forces, it was George W. Bush. Now with the most pro-abortion president in history, simmering differences are coming to the forefront. The same thing happened to the civil right movements (NCAAP vs. SCLC) or any political campaign once they have won.

Obama is all about packaging. I would like to give this woman the benefit of the doubt, but it is Obama's actions that make me wonder. He tries very hard to portray himself in a manner that is not extreme on either side but his actions is what gives him away. Will this woman even have any influence? Or is she just window dressing for the voter who is trying to justify that Obama is not as extreme on the abortion issue as he really is.

I, personally, was grateful from the get-go for Pres. Obama's publicly expressed opinion that abortion is a moral tragedy and the numbers should be reduced (as opposed to abortion as a medical procedure just like an other and the numbers simply don't matter).

Obama has not said that from the get-go. He is the most extreme, Mengelian-like Pro-abortion President the world has ever seen.

He has no intention of reducing the number of abortions. He voted, repeatedly, in such a manner that even children who survived an abortion ( see this blog - http://www.jillstanek.com/ ) would not receive legal protection.

The let us "Reduce the number of abortions," rhetoric is simply a ruse intended to keep potential opponents of the pro-aborts compliant and willing to "work" towards establishing a "Common Ground." It has nothing to due with morally acceptable ways to reduce abortions. Look, a nuclear war today will reduce abortions ten years from now so that puts into perspective the vapidity and amorality of the "let's work together to reduce abortions" scam.

Libs have been saying that for a score of years yet not ONE of them has proposed a morally acceptable way to do it. And they never will.

Who thinks Obama is in favor of chastity and abstinence education?

One of the FIRST things her did was to abort Bush's Mexico Policy GUARANTEEING there would be more, not fewer, abortions.

He is a flat-out Monster and it is beyond belief that so many Catholics continue to give him the benefit of the doubt.

What is there to doubt? No thing.

PLEASE everyone, hold your fire and listen to this 82 yr old practicing Catholic. It is very easy to understand. If you are Catholic, you are registered in a Parish, you receive the Sacraments regularly, you participate in Church activities, and you obey the Pope. It is not hard if you believe what Jesus told the Apostles.
It's like when does a fetus become a human - when it is conceived. It never becomes anything else but a human baby. Just what our Church teaches.Janice

I think you may be underestimating the impact that Obama's abortion language has.

Some people are smart enough, I wager, to wonder why, if abortion is a supposedly a good thing, he would want to reduce it.

That's our advantage in this struggle. To be an open advocate for abortion as a positive social good would be politically alienating; to argue that abortion should be reduced, that it ought to be 'rare', throws its alleged moral goodness into question.

Finally, and I'm sure you'll get in a huff over this but I'll say it anyway, Obama is not a monster. Catholics might be 'giving him the benefit of the doubt' - or more prudently, simply dealing with him civilly and charitably - because it is more or less what the Vatican has been doing.

I don't focus on Obama because it is a waste of time. Abortion is a cultural and social issue, not something that depends on the will of one man. Bush was in office for 8 years and his pro-life policies, while good in themselves, didn't really change the status quo, politically or culturally.

Why does no one really "see" this whole situation as it truly is? It's the dismembering, the ripping apart of a child in the womb--the little arms and legs ripped off! I only wish people could actually watch an abortion from beginning to end and see the results! And with partial birth abortion it's the stabbing with a scissor into the head of the child to collaspe the brain so it can be sucked out, then delivered dead! And there have been millions and millions of these innocent babies unmercifully murdered in such a horrendous way! Mr. Obama is totally all for this, and if a baby should survive this cruel and horrible agony, he says to put "it" aside and do not assist "it" in any way--just let it die. This is what he voted for while in the senate!!!

How can we call ourselves human beings when we allow this kind of inhumane practice to take place on a helpless baby and not be outraged and want to put an end to this evil! How can a doctor call himself such when he should be saving lives not killing them! What kind of people have we become? I see it as selfish, self-absorbed, self-centered, sinful, cruel, unfeeling, uncaring and loathsome, and that's my honest opinion! America will pay the price for its own atrocities because we are condeming ourselves. We will reap what we have sown, and deservingly so! God help us all!

I'm glad Mr. Hudson took a closer look and found some darker parts of the Culture of Death coming to light, and I like the way he exposed them.

But if you think what he's exposed is grim, wait until some of the bigger rocks farther down in that basement are overturned, and some of the REALLY dark creatures are exposed to the light.

I have caught hints of attitudes far darker, far more diabolical than the mere attitude that a woman's choice to abort her child is the only important issue in this controversy. The Culture of Death contains what is a de facto religion. Abortion is the most visible and horrendous manifestation of this. But in fact it's an idolatry of carnality--carnality in the broadest sense, where sexual license is merely the most obvious and prominent aspect, but what is worshipped is a lifestyle of pursuing personal gratification at any cost. Any "preference" is in fact treated as a sacred thing, and those who disagree are not at all regarded as being entitled to a different opinion, even if misguided. They are demonized, because they profane that which this culture is increasingly treating as sacred. The "right" to "choice"; to unlimited self-gratification, is not merely to be protected at all costs; it cannot even be questioned. That is blasphemy (they don't call it that, but that's how they treat it) and those who speak it are evil, dangerous heretics who are probaly causing bad weather and crop failures and swine flu and need to be suppressed.

We see this in the euthanasia movement, where increasingly "quality of life" is a shibboleth; a sacred principle. Increasingly, the chronically sick (unless it's AIDS, which is a Sacred diseas to the Culture of Death), the old, the disabled, are seen as those who should not live. Of course this is spun as positive; it is "compassionate". One pro-abortion activist castigated Sarah Palin as being "cruel" for not abortion her child with Down's syndrome. Imagin Ms. Palin's cruelty, for inflicting life on someone who could never be a Beautiful Person. Doctors in Englad have admitted to euthanizing a great many newborns. Severely handicapped, of coruse, but they have also included children born with simple deformities, including harelips. In the name of compassion, of course.

Recently a Catholic Priest had to leave his office because he was caught having an affair. With indecent haste, he is being accepted as a priest in the Episcopal Church. And he is being lauded as being a hero for having that affair. Praised for his affirmation of romance; of human pleasure. Never mind that he has proved that he cannot be trusted to keep a vow before God; what does being true to God matter when he's being true to himself?

There is a book called "The Sacrament of Abortion" out there. There have been proposals in the "modernist" parts of the Episcopal Church to create a special rite to "celebrate" an abortion. I'm not making this up. In fact, there are Episcopalians who wish to offer special prayers for women who find that they suffer from "lost pregnancies". And they lump abortions in with miscarriages, as if there is no difference. One Episcopal woman who is promoting this said that several years after she had an abortion, she found herself in emotional pain about the "loss" and thought that perhaps special prayer services could help other women like her to recover from their "losses". No hint at all that perhaps she had done something wrong.

It's getting eerie, how lacking in compassion some of these people are. I am reminded of earnest slave owners who tried to argue that they had the best interest of their slaves at heart, and offered as proof that they felt regreat and compassion when they had to severely "discipline" a slave--which "discipline" frequently included castration for male slaves.

So. Not only are their those who assert the "right" of the mother to kill her child as the only issue involved, there are others in darker corners of that cellar who have not had something like the Tiller murder bring the public spotlight onto them, who praise abortion as a holy thing.

Make no mistake. Even these examples I give have not begun to give the full enormity of the dreadful evils that lurk in the shadows of the cellars and dungeons of the Culture of Death.

But I want to end on a note of hope here: In the Presentation at the Temple, Simeon warned the Blessed Virgin--and by extension every Christian to the end of time--that Jesus would be a sword through her heart (and therefore through ours); that he would be a sign of contradiction (attracting opposition and hostility), but also that the secret thoughts of many hearts would be revealed, and he would sign the rise and fall of many in Israel (the community of God).

The Culture of Death has been unable to silence the pro-life movement, and one good thing, shown in Mr. Hudson's essay, is that they are unable to oppose the Culture of Life without showing their hand, either explicitly through what they say or implicitly in how they behave.

Years ago, the public had never heard of "partial-birth abortion." Only when the Culture of Death actually had to oppose attempts to make it illegal did it come before the public eye, and they public saw, not only what it really was, but that the Culture of Death had been keeping it under wraps. I am convinced that this is an important factor in the increasing wave of pro-life public opinion.

The Pro-Life people need to keep this up. But brace yourselves; the Culture of Life has not yet begun to fight.

On another topic: I believe it's a mistake to think that such things as a "pro-choice" Catholic in government is an improvement on the situation. No number of childrenn's murders is negotiable. While it may appear a useful step in the right direction, it really perpetuates the position that the Culture of Death has a right to negotiate over their position and that some numbers of abortions can be expected to be allowed.

In Christ,

Jay Maupin

I want to thank those above who took the time to understand what I was saying. Some of the comments read as if they had nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said, but with who some people think I am, but that's another matter, altogether. I don't know Alexia Kelley. I don't what her personal views are on the matter of abortion. I know what she said as the head of Catholics in Alliance, and I know how it is philosophically at odds with Catholics for Choice. It's the significance of that difference I was trying to tease out -- I had already discussed the politics of the difference in a previous Window. As I said, the evidence points to the conclusion that Obama is closer to Catholics for Choice and that the Kelley appointment was based more on her help in the campaign than her abortion reduction advocacy (though the two are connected). If she turns out to be a moderating influence on Obama and Sebelius, that is good, and I hope it will be the case. This doesn't mean the administration had suddenly become pro-life, it means the administration might include some folks who will push back the extremists. But this speculation. The more interesting point is how the seams in the pro-abortion movement are being exposed.

What is amazing to me, living right here in NE, and seeing Carhart's work, and Labenz'z work is that the subject of defending life of any kind seems to be getting dark. I would like to believe that the ideals Obama is throwing out there with his rhetoric on meeting each side's need "half-way," but he is constantly appointing to office those who are so far on the liberal left that actions and words of true peacefulness are getting more and more difficult. Furthermore, killing an abortionist doesn't bring back the dead infants, nor does it soothe the guilty consciences of those who had abortions or the doctors who chose to perform those abortions.

Comparing Tiller's killing to Martin Luther King Jr.'s death is wrong. Tiller may have thought himself a very good person, and his family may thought him a good person, too. After all, God came for us all, even the worst of the sinners among us. The trouble with this death, and the trouble with this argument in general, is that killing is never justified, for any purpose. If pro-lifers are indeed pro-life, all killing is wrong, no matter what. In fact, if you have children, raise children in anyway, or every took care of a child and didn't abuse him or her, you are probably pro-life in a quiet, reserved kind of way, and you didn't even realize it. And to agree with the eighty-two year old Roman Catholic, the Pope said don't kill, babies are babies at conception, the USSCB (college of Catholic Bishops) agreed, condemning the killing of Tiller, (but don't let it stop the pro-life movement), and our own Greg Schleppenbach, who is a part of National Right to Life and Lincoln Right to Life backed them up with his own condemnation. So what is our argument? The author continues to pick a scab, and every child knows that if you continue to pick at a wound, it won't heal. The main trouble with speaking about the darkness of the basement, and Alexis Kelley's issues, or Obama's issues, or any pro-choice issues, is that we scrape the bottom of the barrel. Sometimes the sludge needs to be stirred, in order that more salt and seasoning can be added. We need to keep writing. We need to keep being peaceful. We need to continue praying, and we need to continue bringing kindness to a world that can be very unkind, at times.

I don't doubt that Kelly has good intentions - that's not for us to decide - but make no mistake, for Obama she will be totally manageable or she wouldn't be where she is. Like Doug Kmiec she poses no threat but her presence will provide another way for legions of middle-of-the-road Catholics to rationalize their support for Obama and accept his seductive message.

And seductive it is. It is delivered in a gorgeously smooth and reasonable tone; it is filled with comforting words like hope and change. It's power has already been proven in the polls.

Can we call this man evil? Does he have evil intentions? Again, not for us to say. What we can say is that he is brilliant, pragmatic and intellectual but in the end doesn't have a Christian heart.

And why on earth would he? He is the perfect product of secular American culture, the result of all our hard work and progress, the embodiment of the current American dream: Harvard-educated, handsome, well-spoken, popular, tolerant, successful, came up from nothing.

And this perfect product of secular American culture believes that those who oppose abortion simply haven't evolved yet to the correct position. He looks upon us not with contempt but as a parent would look upon a child or a teacher a student, with an attitude of patient guidance.

In the dazzling glare of Obama's historical election, this very same patient guidance, along with carefully selected words, strategic placement of Catholics in his administration, seduction of the likes of Doug Kmiec et al and the backing of millions of unwitting Catholics will help Obama chip away at our resistance and quite possibly marginalize an entire movement.

Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL
by Amanda B. Carpenter
12/26/2006

Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, [color=#FF0000]NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, “I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”

“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being “very clear and forthright,” but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested “doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.” He told her, “That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.”

As a senator, Obama has opposed measures to criminalize those who transport minors across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.

At a townhall meeting in Ottawa, Ill., Joanne Resendiz, a teacher and mother of five, asked him: “How are you going to vote on this, keeping in mind that 10, 15 years down the line your daughters, God forbid, could be transported across state lines?”

Obama said: “The decision generally is one that a woman should make.”
[/color]

Syrupy words, sulphurous actions. But, let's pretend we "can work with him."

Syrupy words, sulphurous actions. But, let's pretend we "can work with him."

Those words are mine, not Amanda Carpenter. I do not know when Catholics are going to wake-up to the reality this man is a flat-out monster but, no, Joe H, you don't make my mad by disagreeing with me.

Lifesite news has a compilation of his recent pro abortion actions.

http://www.lifenews.com/obamaabortionrecord.html

I'm willing to stipulate that all, or virtually all those mentioned in this thread have "good intentions." As well, Plato and Augustine knew we all seek happiness. The problem is generally not the intention or happiness, it is three further items. First, is the translation of a vague intention into concrete "metrics" or characteristics. For Jeffery Dahmer "happiness" translated in a way too sick to discuss. Toward the intention of freedom (especially here for women) the translation is a central element. Is "happiness" and "freedom" the right to be promiscuous without consequence? What exactly is it? How would I know it if I were to see it in practice? Our president, seemingly a doting father of two girls, sees their "happiness" as potentially jeopardized by the "punishment" of a pregnancy that is a consequence of promiscuity. Hence, his translation of happiness includes their ability to dispose of this unwanted "punishment."

Second is the person's mental model of the path to her intention. I may believe that unfettered capitalism leads to the best outcomes for all. You may believe that income redistribution and public control of companies is the correct route. Or, you may believe some other path to the good intention. These paths are to some degree empirically testable, to some degree logically testable, and to some degree taken on faith.

The third item is the risks or "collateral damage" one is willing to tolerate as one pursues the chosen path. Many died in the construction of the Hoover Dam and the Panama Canal. Construction methods and societal tolerance were such that few were outraged, given the momentous importance and prestige of those two projects. I remember hearing that a rule of thumb in "the old days" was one construction death per skyscraper floor. Today we would never countenance such risks, and invest significant amounts of money and time to ensure worker safety. Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot, to name a few, had a very high tolerance for collateral damage on the way to utopia.

We will make little progress challenging "intentions." But, 1) what specific outcomes are we valuing? 2) What mechanism do we believe will achieve those outcomes? What basis do we have for believing those mechanisms to be efficacious? And 3) what risks are we willing to tolerate? What events -- expected or not -- are beyond the pale?

Perhaps I'm being too much the strategy consultant, but I think that by clarifying our points of agreement and departure we can discuss these sensitive topics more fruitfully...

"Lincoln's case against Douglas may be summarized as follows: The divisive influence of slavery was one great threat to the American union, and the policy inaugurated in the Kansas-Nebraska Act had only intensified the sectional conflict. On the moral issue posed by slavery there could be no middle ground; the neutralism preached by Douglas was calculated to dull the Northern conscience and thus clear the way for legalization of the institution everywhere in the nation. Only the Republican program, which accorded with the views of the founding fathers, offered a feasible alternative to this grim eventuality. Slavery must be recognized as an evil and, within the bounds of the Constitution, treated as an evil. Specifically,it must be confined to its existing limits and marked for ultimate extinction."-Don E. Fehrenbacher,Prelude to Greatness: Lincoln in the 1850's, p.10

Too bad the Republicans today are not as steadfast as they once were (even though it led to a civil war.)

Response from Lincoln to Stephan Douglas:
"If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us be diverted by none of those sophisticated contrivances wherewith we are so industriously supplied and belabored-contrivance such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man."

I am a cradle Catholic. I have no respect for Catholics-in-name-only. If you don't believe and abide by the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church, you are not a Catholic. I like my Catholicism to be bold and true; not the watered down version that some would have us own. My Catholicism is based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It's not based on personal preferences, personal philosophy, opinions, political realities, or all that other junk that people argue about. God the Father said, "Do not kill." God the Son said, whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers (and sisters) you do to me.

I just want the killing of the unborn to stop. 50 million babies since 1973; 3,000 a day ripped from their mothers' wombs. Hundreds of thousands of women, men, and families scarred by the wounds (some physical--some spiritual or psychic)that they need real healing for.

And what do we do? Argue if we can "reduce" the numbers of abortions. There isn't a baby conceived that deserves to die. There isn't a woman out there who should think that the only choice she really has is to kill her baby.

Deal, I love the fact that the pro-choice (pro-abort) Catholics are fighting among themselves. Maybe they will destroy themselves and the true Catholics will be victorious. (read the end of the Book and we win!)

It is hard to miss all the pro-choice "Catholics" with which the Obama administration is stacked to the ceiling. (Look at the TV screen during the next address of the joint houses.) A person cannot truthfully claim to be a member of a church whose teachings they reject. Ms. Kelly and any other pro-choice "Catholic" politician has traded his or her religion for political power and ultimately takes the side of evil vs. good. Like any politician, her speech is hot air nuanced to make people feel as though she is agreeing with them while her actions may clearly state otherwise. No Catholic who can state their faith in the Creed and receive the Sacraments should allow themselves to be fooled into thinking that pro-choice Catholics can be a force for good in spreading the Gospel of Life.

Henry-

This is not a matter of any of us judging Ms. Kelley as "sufficiently" (or not) Catholic. Only God can do that.

However, let us be clear about one thing: as Catholics in Communion with the Church and by the orders of the Magisterium, we must be pro-life. Period. Unequivocally. Not open for interpretation.

To "choose" to have an abortion is to choose to commit murder. Living with that choice, as it is , is between the individual who allowed it to happen and God. I will not judge. And I cannot honestly say what I would do if I was in a position where someone very close to me was raped and impregnated. But it seems to me if God allowed the conception, it should be seen through to the end. A child of violence does not give me the right to condemn that child to death.

I suggest a return to the Catechism for all cultural "Catholics," before their time on earth is up.

Blessings to all.

Deal,

Firstly Thanks for the article. Abortion is undefendable, period. And can I say Kelley and Kmiec did not make Obama's abortion record palatable to Catholics, they TRIED to make it palatable, and should have failed; unfortunately enough so-called Catholics bought it to have him elected.

No doubt Obama is a clever man, schooled through the sturm and drang of Chicago politics, he knows what it takes, and more than that, has every trick in the book to get it done. Judging by some of the reactions right here, he's having the desired effect, with comments like post #2 above "Kelly (sic) seems a good choice. No one is perfect, but I think she is sufficiently Catholic...". Sorry, but to use a well-worn phrase that has particular relevance here, this is like saying someone is sufficiently pregnant! You're either pregnant or you're not.

Deal, I don't meant to be opportunistic here, but this is about the 'Culture of Death' (COD), and the title for my post suggests the gravity of the situation. I can't help but widen this to the situation in the Middle East, because COD is alive and well (no pun intended) over there. I have no doubt that the animus that directs a parent to send a child to blow themselves up along with innocent civilians, or that lauds the slow public (televised) beheading of a hostage is the same one that directs people to justify killing the sick and old, as well as the unborn.

The underlying philosophy here is that death, even of my children, is preferable to preserve or give expression to one or all of the following - my comfort, my hatred, my "peace of mind", my economic well being, my certainty that I am right. This is why Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism have ready apologists on the left wing of American and European politics, why feminists are mute on the subject of inhuman treatment of women in the Middle-East, why Obama said not a word on this in his Cairo speech, and why he was able to equate the holocaust with Palestinian "resistance".

I like I am Spartacus' characterisation of "syrupy and sulphurous", it is death delivered with a truckload of molasses.

Bon Apetit

Deal, although I addressed my post to you, that last invitation was not directed at you, so I just want to clear up any misunderstanding. It was meant as a general admonition to everyone, including myself, that we tolerate evil at our own expense.

"However, let us be clear about one thing: as Catholics in Communion with the Church and by the orders of the Magisterium, we must be pro-life. Period. Unequivocally. Not open for interpretation."

Right. But don't confuse means and ends, and prudential judgment as to how people think one should go about being pro-life policies into actuality with what it means to be pro-life. The documents which suggest that one can vote for a pro-choice politician are right; you don't vote for them because they are pro-choice, obviously, but for other reasons. An example which might help people: Hitler. The Catholics often worked with the pro-choicers in Germany against Hitler. Do you think voting for someone who was pro-choice was worse than voting for Hitler?

The issue is never simple. That is something people need to realize. You might not agree with how someone else engages prudential reason -- they probably won't agree with you. But if you start name calling just because they think maybe a different approach will work (they could be wrong) and say they really aren't pro-life, then you begin to see how the pro-life movement splits itself too much, too. That is one of the things which needs to be learned from this thread: it's too quick to call things "left" or "right," and then say "the left are split." No. I don't think it is an issue of "left are split." I think it is an issue that pro-lifers are split. Sadly.

Why don't you just end right there mate, the further you go the bigger the hole gets.

There are two possibilities here, as I see it:

a) Kelley and/or Obama really do want to see less abortions, and are trying to bring this about through a campaign of abortion reduction.

b) Kelley and/or Obama really want to see a reduction in human population and "abortion reduction" really means contraception and sterilization.

If the latter, its rhetoric that we've seen before: the theory is repeatedly put forward that if we can "reduce unwanted pregnancies" we will thereby reduce abortions -- and of course, unwanted pregnancies are to be reduced by artificially suppressing fertility. Every pro-lifer knows that this has never actually led to a decrease either in unwanted pregnancy, or in abortion -- on the contrary, people who feel that they have been "responsible" in their sexual choices by practicing "safe sex" feel that they have a right not to get pregnant, and therefore a right to abort if they do.

Now, if this is not what they mean, and Kelley really does want to reduce the number of abortions, she has my support. After all, if it is not in her power to bring about the legal end to abortion (which, clearly, it is not), but it is in her power to save some babies and some mothers from the scourge of abortion, then she should do what she is able, and she should not be censured for it. (It's analagous, I think, to the Vatican's actions during the Holocaust -- there was no way that they could stop Hitler's anti-Jewish campaign, so they saved those Jewish people that they could.)

None the less, I'm skeptical. I've been hearing that "reduce unwanted pregnancies" rhetoric too much from this administration, and I suspect that all the talk of reducing abortions really is nothing more than the next false front of the eugenic campaign to get rid of large number of humans who are "unwanted" -- not by their mothers, but by those in power.