Francis J. Beckwith said...
If Obama is standing up to his own party, then why is his position on abortion the most liberal of any prior Democratic nomination for the presidency, including Clinton? Remember, Obama supports FOCA, the freedom of choice act, which would, if passed by Congress and the next president, wipe out every legislative and judicial restriction on abortion, state, federal, and local. It will also require federal funding of abortion and the end of conscience clauses in some states that permit doctors to not refer patients to an abortionist.
FOCA also means that Christian hospitals would probably lose their accreditation if they are not willing to perform abortions, since accrediting agencies, certified by the federal government, require physicians to have a certain level of training adequate for the health of their patients. If abortion is essential to women's health, then ipso facto Christian hospitals and medical schools are toast.
Moreover, reducing the number of abortions is not the same as affirming a culture of life. For the way in which Obama's allies--such as Miller and Doug Kmiec--claim that he will reduce abortions--funding of prenatal care, help to unwed mothers--reinforces the idea that it is the chooser who must be pacified so that the child may live. Imagine, for example, we bribed wife beaters to stop abusing their spouses and reduced the rate as a consequence. Would that really be nurturing a cultural of spousal love and devotion? Nope. It would, ironically, reinforce to the husband that his power is all that matters and that the exercise of that power may only be legitimately curtailed if the abuser chooses not to exercise it. The fact that it is another power--money--that serves as the will's catalyst means that it is not the good of the other, the wife, that is doing the work. Thus, the noble goal of reducing spousal abuse is advanced by massaging the very posture that produces it.
Miller seems like a nice enough guy. But on this matter he has no idea what he is talking about.
Francis J. Beckwith said...
"If McCain were strong on the issue, he would call it murder, saying abortion should be criminalized, and perhaps Cindy McCain would talk about the issue. Sara Palin would talk about how abortion should be criminalized."
What an odd thing to say. If one is trying to persuade people to support your point of view, you begin with the most attractive portion of your case and then tease out the consequences later. McCain and Palin are prolife, but their first task is to make a case for their unconvinced neighbors. Starting with the criminal law is no place to begin. This is, after all, politics.
Now, if Mr. Miller were consistent he would ask his friends on the left to come clean on what they are going to do with parents, churches, businesses, and citizens who resist same-sex marriage. Will they be subject to civil suits (as has happened in New Mexico concerning a photographer) or not allowed to place children up for adoption to only married heterosexual couples (as in the case of Catholic Charities in MA).
If Mr. Miller were really interested in the issue of abortion, he would know that his "objection" has been addressed by many, many authors since the ascendancy of the Roe regime. In fact, yours truly has addressed this question in Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, (Cambridge University Press, 2007).