Kmiec and Robert George disagree on how to deal with Obama and abortion
Imprimir Incrementar tamaño de fuente Disminuir tamaño de fuente

Professors Robert George, Mary Ann Glendon, Douglas Kmiec

.- Prof. Doug W. Kmiec of Pepperdine University and Prof. Robert P. George of Princeton University debated at the National Press Club on Thursday about the role of Catholics in politics and whether pro-life concerns should encourage support for or opposition to President Barack Obama.

Kmiec, a law professor and prominent Catholic supporter of Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, argued that President Obama would implement policies to reduce abortions, and that he offered sound political positions on other important issues.

George, a law professor and a Republican member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, contended that President Obama really did not believe abortion to be a moral evil and did not believe in the human equality of the unborn.
Kmiec began his remarks by praising what he saw as President Obama’s ability to seek “common ground” and his exploration of whether common ground on disputed abortion policy can in fact exist.

Stressing that he considered “unacceptable” moral evasions about the immorality of abortion or the injustice of permissive abortion laws, he cited Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Evangelium Vitae,” about support for political proposals to lessen the negative consequences of abortion.

Intent is a “key element” in supporting such proposals, he said.

“Are we as Catholics expected to sit on the sidelines, aloof with our truth, talking among ourselves, reinforcing our goodness, or are we to engage our fellow citizens and indeed offer that gift of the truth of the human person… in matters of election and of public policy?” Kmiec asked rhetorically.

“Catholics must translate their faith tradition into understandable terms and offer it to their fellow citizens,” he advised.

Noting what he saw as President Obama’s praiseworthy positions, Kmiec said the president sought to end a war that leading prelates of Catholic Church had “pleaded” with President Bush not to enter. Kmiec said Obama seeks to be “a steward of the environment,” seeks to reform the health care system, and will “welcome the stranger” on immigration issues.

“And yet there is the issue of abortion. How to handle that question?” Kmiec continued.

Kmiec argued a Catholic may vote for an abortion supporter for “proportionate reasons,” so long there is “no active intent to advance the intrinsic evil of abortion.”

He said that National Institutes of Health draft regulations on embryonic stem cell research demonstrate that Obama is “listening” even “without agreeing with us.” Specifically, Kmiec praised the Obama administration’s funding of adult stem cell research and its decision not to use altered nuclear transfer/human cloning techniques to produce embryonic stem cells.

Kmiec also denounced as “intimidation” the proposed or actual denial of Holy Communion to abortion rights supporters such as Vice President Joseph Biden or former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. He argued this was “not an effective or Catholic approach.”

“The Church is not a political party and it can never find itself captured by a political party,” Kmiec concluded his opening remarks. “It is wrong to make the perfect the enemy of good, justice the enemy of love and, quite frankly, wrong not to recognize the good heart and genuine respect for life in someone coming from a point of view that is not necessarily the one that we ourselves have indulged in the past.”

Prof. George began by saying that he does not question the president’s sincerity when he speaks about human rights.

However, he claimed President Obama “does not understand the concept of human rights, as Professor Kmiec and I do, to refer to rights—above all the right to life—that all human beings possess simply by virtue of our humanity. For the President, being human is not enough to qualify someone as the bearer of a right to life.”

He characterized this as an idea foundational to the president’s position on abortion.

George referred to Obama’s opposition to the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, saying that the president denied the “fundamental equality” of the child left unprotected because of his opposition to the law as an Illinois legislator.

“He has made clear his own conviction that the equality of women depends on denying the equality and rights of the children they carry. He has made what is, from the pro-life point of view, the tragic error of supposing that the equality of one class of human beings can and must be purchased by denial of the equality of another.”

George suggested that some of Obama’s supporters do not serve him well by “pretending” that his expressed willingness to find “common ground” with pro-lifers involves the recognition that abortion or embryo-destructive research is “bad or tragic because it kills a living member of the human family.”

Obama does not profess to be “personally opposed” to abortion or to believe that abortion is a wrongful act that must nevertheless be legally permitted because the consequences of outlawing it would be worse, George claimed.

“His belief, and his policy, is that abortion, if a woman chooses it, is not wrong. That is why he is not personally opposed to it. There is no wrong there to oppose,” he charged, citing the president’s past presentation of abortion as the “right solution to a problem” in which otherwise a woman might be, in Obama’s words, “punished with a baby.”

George then suggested that Obama views abortion as no more bad or wrong than a knee replacement operation:

“No one regards knee operations as desirable for their own sakes…. But a knee operation is not something that one would discourage or be personally opposed to.”

George attacked the “common ground” claim that Obama wants to reduce the number of abortions. He reported that pro-life activist Wendy Wright, meeting with the Director of the President’s Domestic Policy Council Melody Barnes, was told that the precise goal of the administration is to “reduce the need for abortions,” not reduce the number of abortions.

This was echoed by Obama’s speech at Notre Dame, George claimed, when the president didn’t propose reducing the number of abortions; rather, the president said he would work to reduce “the number of women seeking abortions.”

“The President and his administration will not join us on the common ground of discouraging women from having abortions or even in encouraging them to choose childbirth over abortion. The proposed common ground is the reduction of unwanted pregnancies—not discouraging those in ‘need’ of abortion from having them.”

“The President and the people he has placed in charge of this issue, such as Melody Barnes, have a deep ideological commitment to the idea that there is nothing actually wrong with abortion, because the child in the womb simply has no rights.”

Because of his view of abortion the president “is utterly and intransigently unwilling to support even efforts short of prohibiting abortion that would plainly reduce the number of abortions.”

“On issue of embryonic stem cell research, Obama revoked President Bush’s executive order promoting research to advance non-embryo-destructive sources of pluripotent stem cells,” he added.

“The common ground I am interested in is with pro-life Americans who, like Professor Kmiec, have supported the President politically,” George’s remarks oncluded.

“On which issues will we support the President’s direction, and on which will we challenge him because he is heading in the wrong direction? Those pro-life Americans who voted for him and support him should not object when we speak for the most vulnerable and defenseless of our fellow human beings, even when that means severely criticizing the President’s policies. They should stand with us on common ground, and join their voices with ours.”

Imprimir Incrementar tamaño de fuente Disminuir tamaño de fuente
Subscriber comments:
Published by: Constance
CT, USA 06/05/2009 12:19 PM EST
Our president is a co-author of FOCA. He told Planned Parenthood he would sign this bill if he became president. How a majority of Catholics voted for him when this Act would be the most extreme act against all Christians of faith who believe in the sanctity of life. Life! Life! Without it one cannot have any other benefits and stopping war, feeding the starving, letting in immigrants can't compare to this most precious value. If our president doesn't believe in the humanity of an unborn child, how does he think he can be a partner in stopping war and promoting peace? We must pray very hard for him.
And, for you Catholics who voted for him, you must rise against any of his policies that promote more death. Please be responsible.
Published by: Johnny
Ann Arbor 06/02/2009 07:36 AM EST
In all sincerity, let's consider all of the points that Kmiec makes, but in reference to another seeker of common ground: Satan.

Satan listens to us, but does not agree with us. Satan often seeks to have us pursue other priorities, so we can ignore the ones that really matter like life eternal with Jesus.

Satan believes in our perceived proportionate reasons, because anyone who stops selling themselves completly out to God, has turned away from him.

Satan's PRIMARY goal is to SEEK COMMON GROUND with us, but unfortunatly for us, the only common ground we can share with him is our created existence, sin, and hell.

I have met Kmiec, and I believe him to sincerely care about the Catholic church. But when you are tooth and nail fighting with Bishops, the shepherds of the church, when your final point is a sob story about how a priest didn't think your mouth was worthy for Jesus Christ, maybe, just maybe, there is the slightest chance your reasoning might be wrong????

I pray for Kmiec's soul, for as it is written "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe (in me) to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea."
Mark 9:42
Published by: J.Gibbs
Oswego, IL 06/01/2009 11:17 AM EST
Wonderful opportunity to hear two viewpoints, ie., debate. I have felt intuitively that Obama actually does not believe the embryo is a "life". He believes it is just tissue and not a life until it is born or "living" and crying out loud. Prof. George hit the nail on the head.
Published by: Russ Craigmile
Alexandria, MN USA 06/01/2009 11:01 AM EST
It is all so simple, really. You are either for life or not. The President is striving for social justice. What is more important in social justice than the right to life?
Published by: Radomysl Twardowski
Bismarck, ND, USA 06/01/2009 09:39 AM EST
I disagree with Mr. Kmiec's approach to the politics of abortion and his support of someone who supports abortion. I just don't see how two wrongs can make a right. "Let your speech be yes yes and no no", Mt 5:37.
Published by: Bill Sr.
Jacksonville, FL 06/01/2009 08:24 AM EST
If you can base your argument for “legal” abortion on the fact that a mother has the “right to terminate” the life of the infant in her womb because she does not want it to exist any longer, is that any different from premeditated murders?

Is the pregnant mothers “ownership” of the person to be terminated that authors the “right”?
Could the same mother ‘eliminate’ her two year old child?
What’s the difference?
Is the two year old part of society and there by protected by the “state” who could take the child from her if they knew her intentions?
Then who actually “owns” our children?
When does the ownership take place?

If it’s at conception then exactly what is it that the mother “owns”?
What is it that mothers and fathers are so concerned about and law enforcement, medics, hospital personnel, and doctors use every medical technology available to track and care for that is in the womb during a woman’s pregnancy?

Well if it isn’t a human life them what’s all the fuss about?

But if it is, then abortion is just and another kind of premeditated murder and no different than the terrible killing of Dr. Tiller in Kansas yesterday.
The ONE question that MUST BE ANSWERED for society is; when does life begin?

Unfortunately, like our president, no one in government wants to answer that question but they are perfectly willing to make laws based on their “assumptions” regarding it.
Published by: JLS
Riverside, CA, USA 06/01/2009 12:32 AM EST
Kmiec is a spiritually and religiously corrupt.
Published by: Robert Lockwood
Lafayette,CA 06/01/2009 12:13 AM EST
First of all, by definition Kemic is not a Catholic therefore any comments he makes are personal opinions and carry no validity. Second, Obama is a typical smoke screen democrat whose only aim is to makes one think he is doing one thing while doing another. Obama is the most anti-Catholic president ever and we must recognize this. Ther is no "middle ground" on the TEN COMMANDMENTS.
Published by: James
Tampa/FL 05/31/2009 08:43 PM EST
Prof. Kmiec has made himself irrelevant and shame on the Catholic News Agency for even putting forth his pathetic excuses for supporting the evil that is promoted by Barrack Hussein Obama. For his own soul Mr Kmiec better not receive the most Holy Eucharist until he repents of his mortal sin he commits in working for the election and now promotion of this man, our President, who is an elitist through and through. I have and will continue to pray for the conversion of our President and for Doug Kmiec as well. Our nation needs a huge revival of grace received so men like Obama can never again have the chance to destroy this nation from within with so many complicit Catholics.
Published by: Dan
Santa Fe/NM/US 05/31/2009 08:18 PM EST
Kmiec may get an "A' in debate class but sadly he flunked ethics and Catholic morality 101. Please tell us who deemed this sophist 'a promienent Catholic'?
Published by: Robert Matzinger
Taylor/Michigan/USA 05/31/2009 07:31 PM EST
How can we as Catholics not at least voice our opposition to the worlds foremost abortionist, President Obama? If we did not, it would be abandoning our faith and belief in Christ and our Holy Mother! Obama is simply not concerned about the life of the unborn, and if we are not, who will speak for them? It is our role as Catholics and believers in the Holy Trinity to oppose all those who would take the life of the unborn and make our voices and prayer be heard!
Published by: Dr. W. Luckey
Fronr Royal, VA 05/31/2009 06:26 PM EST
I have been a consistent critic of Prof. Kmiec, especially in my blog, and in articles in CNA. Why there is any interest in what he has to say is beyond me. Prof. George states the true Catholic teaching very well; Kniec clouds the issues, and hence fogs the minds of our weaker brethern. He should not even be on a panel with George and Glendon.
Published by: John
IL 05/31/2009 05:22 PM EST
George is correct. Kmiec has lost his way...and even now wants to redefine marriage. His logic on the marriage issue is just as illogical.
Published by: dAVID LARSEN
scituate Mass. USA 05/31/2009 04:08 PM EST
Common ground is to be grounded in the love of Christ and with a respect for all life. Christ died on the cross to save all from sin and to bring all to redemption by the forgiveness of sin. Without the sacrifice of Christ on the cross all are dead in their sins. This is Christian theology. This is universal common ground. Catholic!
Thou shalt not kill is sin on many levels,one of which is abortion. This is not a single issue it is profoundly universal. Abortion is a consequence of "The New Morality"and that is no morality at all! The political agendas of these days seek to destroy convention and tradition to establish uncertain circumstances in law that are always subject to change.
"Common Ground"and the term "Change"guarantee uncertain times and continually redefined agendas. The one thing certain is uncertainty! Debate about uncertainty is a certainty! "One can't serve God and mammon"!
ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):
NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:
 
PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:
* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.
ADVERTISING
Place your ad here
Resources:
Columns:
News:
Documents:
Tools:
ACI Group:
ACI Prensa