Whether it be a public figure or common citizen, a vote cast holds equal weight within an election; however, when Douglas W. Kmiec endorsed Obama this past year, he represented a large community of conflicted Catholics struggling to find clarity within the important issues concerning this year's election. Can a devout Catholic vote for a pro-choice candidate without allowing an intrinsic evil to remain legal within the United States? Moreover, while the Church speaks out against single-issue voting, does this election force Catholics to choose a side solely based upon abortion?
Douglas Kmiec does not think so. During a recent interview, Kmiec gives clear and concise answers in defense of his support for Obama. He remains loyal to Catholic doctrine when recognizing abortion as an intrinsic evil and grave threat towards Church teaching, yet speaks adamantly about the misunderstanding of Roe vs. Wade and it's direct ability to change through either presidential candidate. Hypothetically speaking, Kmiec believes that if the case were to be overturned on a supreme level, the issue would fall stateside and, most likely, reap the same pro-choice outcomes. Further, he goes on to support the level of aid Obama promises as the change he would like to see within the pro-life/pro-choice debate, posing the choice: "A Catholic can either continue on the failed and uncertain path of seeking to overturn Roe, which would result in the individual states doing their own thing, not necessarily, or in most states even likely, protective of the unborn. Or Senator Obama’s approach could be followed, whereby prenatal and income support, paid maternity leave and greater access to adoption would be relied upon to reduce the incidence of abortion."
Kmiec proposes an excellent choice for all Catholics to seriously consider when casting their vote this fall. While my vote still remains candidate-less, I cannot help but be bothered by the acceptance of abortion as a powerless issue. I believe abortion is an intrinsic evil that cannot be rationalized or solved with solutions of financial aid or an easier system of adoption; instead, I believe every Catholic should denounce the right to kill innocent life and remain in search of solutions towards this goal. Is it realistic to vote solely based upon one's principles, fully knowing that actual change may never occur; or is it more important to cast your vote, despite it's opposition to your morals, so as to be a dutiful citizen?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Douglas Kmiec makes an intriguing argument that I think many Catholics are looking for in order to justify their support of Obama this election. For me, the most important issue during the upcoming elections would be those that surround the state of our welfare system and social services. As an employee in human services, I see and feel the effects of the budget cuts that are made in this area. This leads me to want to check the Obama/Biden box in November. However as a Catholic, I am experiencing the same struggle as many other Catholics in supporting Obama with his history of a pro-choice stance. For me, there is not justification for such a support for what I see as an intrinsic evil. On the other hand, I am not convinced though that the Republicans will follow through with their pro-life message. Let’s be honest, have we seen this pro-life agenda put into place? This brings me back to the hope that Obama’s push for improving social services and the welfare system might offer alternatives for those considering abortion. As a Catholic, it still does not justify my support of a pro-choice candidate…but what’s a Catholic to do?
I believe that it is more productive to vote for the candidate who gets the most “right” on a national level, particularly from a financially minded position (the question of where federal money will go the furthest). In my opinion, a single-issue vote, especially when involving the abortion issue, will not have the desired impact. In addressing the limited scope and consequent ignorance of pro-life voters who fail to see the overturn of Roe as a mere deflection (to individual states) rather than a true solution, Kmiec urges others to broaden their own scope. With that said, he implies that governors and senators may be the difference or change-makers we are looking for in a president. Playing the guilty Catholic, I, like Megan, find myself looking for ways to rationalize voting for Obama, despite his pro-choice position. Although not his desired effect, Kmiec has granted me a permission (of sorts) to vote Obama, so long as I am proactive within my state.
Douglas W. Kmiec didn’t sway my voting prerogative in the least. When answering the third question, “Given those views, why do you support Barack Obama?” his answer had nothing to do with Obama, it only dealt with judiciary rulings and voting precedents. Kmiec states several times how Obama is not “pro-abortion,” the term isn’t pro-abortion, it’s pro-choice. Abortion isn’t something that anyone takes lightly. In a completely secular, since I am rather secular, view Obama trying to “move us beyond the 35 years of acrimony that have done next to nothing to reduce the unwanted pregnancies that give rise to abortions” is a great thing because that is a better environment and option for all parties involved.
When it simplifies to voting “solely based upon one's principles,” if you want your exact moral set, you should run for office, because you’ll never find your moral ying-yang in a candidate. My vote will be decided on the candidate that I feel will best represent the conglomerate of issues pressing in day to day life, not a single, beaming pro-life/choice stance. I want my candidate to incite as much good as possible, then I’ll feel as if I’ve been a “dutiful citizen.”
Post a Comment