Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Douglas Kmiec Back to Defending Pro-Abortion Obama to Catholics
Life Site News ^ | 11/22/11 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 11/23/2011 8:39:23 AM PST by marshmallow

There he goes again. Embattled Catholic law professor and former Obama ambassador to Malta, Douglas Kmiec, is back defending the pro-abortion president to Catholics, this time over conscience issues.

Writing in the National Catholic Reporter today, Kmiec essentially tells Catholics to get over the fact that the Obama administration is dangerously close to adopting new Obamacare rules that will require insurance companies and religious organizations to pay for insurance that will cover birth control, contraception, and drugs that can sometimes cause abortions.

Without saying so directly, Kmiec essentially takes on the Catholic bishops and their argument that the Obama administration is about to trample on the rights of Catholics and other religious groups that don’t want to be required to pay for insurance that violates their moral or religious views.

“Sometimes one is tempted to say a plague on both your houses. We’re not even close to the 2012 election season and already there are overheated claims that the Obama administration is at war with Catholics,” he claims. “It is not.”

“One of the most attractive aspects of President Barack Obama is the significance of faith in his life,” Kmiec adds — which is at odds with Obama’s aggressive promotion of abortion during his administration and condemnation of pro-life advocates and conservative voters as ones who “cling to” their religion.

Kmiec goes further and essentially tells Catholics to shut up about Obama’s impending decision on Obamacare.

“If the law allows for religious beliefs to be observed or unobserved as the authoritative family member may decide, the church really should not complain about the president if its own believer makes the wrong choice in terms of Catholic doctrine,” he says. “In such circumstance, the church’s focus should be upon the education and conversion of heart of its own believer, not.........

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Moral Issues; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: abortions; catholic; kmiec; prolife; romancatholic

1 posted on 11/23/2011 8:39:26 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Like a case of genital warts, Kmiec is bad news whenever he appears.
2 posted on 11/23/2011 8:42:31 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

One has to doubt whether Kmiec ever was an orthodox Catholic. He seems to play whatever card gets him the most publicity and success. He’d better be careful: God doesn’t always give us a chance to repent such behavior. How many souls are already weighing on his conscience?

As for National Catholic Reporter, it is many years past the time that the Bishops should demand that they remove the word “Catholic” from their name.

3 posted on 11/23/2011 8:47:57 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius.2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Hey Doug!
Why do you support killing babies?!?

Are you “over” the impact of killing 50 Million Americans in the last 40 years?

That it has cheapened life, excused fatherless families, pornified our children, and laid the foundation for death panels, deciding who lives and who dies?....Are you “over” that Doug?

4 posted on 11/23/2011 8:50:02 AM PST by G Larry ("I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his Character.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Kmiec got what he wanted - an ambassadorship. His commitment to life was second or third level concern.

5 posted on 11/23/2011 8:54:37 AM PST by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Doug Kmiec sold out for fame and glory. Really pathetic.

6 posted on 11/23/2011 8:58:05 AM PST by Darren McCarty (Anybody but Romney or Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
I would not wish to be Kmiec on Judgment Day.

7 posted on 11/23/2011 9:00:54 AM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

I thought he’d died. Oh, well.

What a nut.

8 posted on 11/23/2011 9:18:11 AM PST by Tax-chick (Thomas Sowell. Accept no substitutes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow

Kmiec will undoubtedly burn in hell

9 posted on 11/23/2011 9:23:07 AM PST by veritas2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
"Douglas, it profits not a man to lose his soul to gain the whole world ... but for Malta ... ?"

(With apologies to St. Thomas More)

10 posted on 11/23/2011 9:32:13 AM PST by Campion ("It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins." -- Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Smorgesboard Catholic: chooses the absolutes HE wants, that is, he makes his own rules.

The Panzer Pope did say that the scourge of modern day life is relative morality.

11 posted on 11/23/2011 10:28:30 AM PST by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
Abortion – nothing less than the extinguishing of a human life - calls into question a much larger issue, and that is the fundamental issue of the right to life itself. Progressives prefer to subsume the value of this individual pre-born life under a cloud of group rights. For to acknowledge the right of the unborn to live is to acknowledge that an individual life has intrinsic value. And that is pure poison to the progressive utopianist meme.

I submit that the horrors of the last 150 years are the direct result of the rise of the will to power and its usurpation of the role that individual conscience, moral restraint and religious sanction used to play in Western human affairs. It is about the desire for the power to control the lives of others down to the smallest details. The great irony is that this interventionist (and ultimately, eliminationist) mindset is precisely what so-called progressives accuse conservatives of harboring. Those who call themselves ‘progressives’ above all desire to wield the power to decide who lives and who dies.

Here is the Vulcan mind-meld translation of the core premise of the Left: ultimately, you have no right to live. By their lights, you are no more than a thing, an animal, or a machine. Therefore, you have no right to the fruits of your labors. You are a ‘resource’ at best. Or you are in their way and must be eliminated. There’s the last 200 years of leftist philosophy and its practical consequences in a nutshell.

The progressive refusal to acknowledge the value of individual human life over an evanescent conflation of group rights and collectivist ideology is one of the principal reasons why no peace, no accommodation, no compromise can ever be made with them. Theirs is a reckless, willful and fundamentally evil disregard for the most fundamental of all of our rights: and that is the individual’s right to live.

This premise is, has been, and continues to be central to the justification for the wholesale slaughter of millions of human beings - and the enslavement and impoverishment of hundreds of millions more. I have written a modest essay concerning the idea of killers without conscience and the pedigree of their ideas. These ideas are on display in the details of 0bamacare, for example. 0bamacare represents the deliberate and willful devaluation of human life - the reduction of people to mere objects. That is the next step on the way to physician-assisted suicide and, if it is not stopped, government-mandated euthanasia.

And worse. Far, far worse. But that's precisely the intent of the so-called "Obamacare" legislation.

Why else would modernity’s Left seek to 'move the goalposts' that define life? And further, to define the value of individual life by its utility? "Utility" - to whom or for what? We have moved from questioning whether any sane human being should be allowed to make such decisions to dithering over who will get to decide. This is monstrous. And if any of you feel that this is hyperbole or tinfoil hattery, consider the source of such ideas.

Listen to Dr. Peter Singer speaking blithely of extending that 'right to choose' to children as old as 28 months! Why? Because Singer argues that at that age, well... they're not fully conscious and capable of reason! Is this some crackpot who no one takes seriously? Hardly. Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. His ideas are universally applauded within academia.

Why else would we hear of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel - Rahm Emanuels brother - also an 'advisor' to 0bama, advocating the assessment of the relative 'quality of life' under the aegis of his innocuous-sounding “Complete Lives” program? Emanuel’s guidelines are strictly utilitarian, and are based in part upon the notion of an individual’s ‘value to society’.

Emmanuel cites this entry from the Jan. 31, 2009 edition of the British medical journal Lancet:

"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated." This may be justified by public opinion, since "broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants and young adults over very elderly people."

"Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects.... Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments.... It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does."

Again, this is an argument for the value of human life based upon its social utility and it is not difficult to trace this view of human life back to its pedigree in early-20th century eugenics. Dr. Emanuel claims further that this system will not be subject to corruption – this fantasy assumes that all men are angels and the millennium has arrived. Systems such as this one, once entrenched, are easily co-opted by fiat and placed in the service of those who wish to arrogate the power of life and death to themselves. Dr. Emanuel offers the following as commentary to the Lancet article:

“Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”

Some persist in crediting Dr. Emanuel with an unblinking and fearless rationality - that will all play a happy tune for high-minded progressives until they face the real and practical application of his utilitarian praxis. Say, for example, when the government panel - not you or your doctor - decides that your premature newborn infant will receive only painkillers because society has nothing invested in the baby and the calculus of the cost-benefit trade-off indicates that the care required will cost too much and have too uncertain an outcome. Or, when you discover that the treatment for your particular malady is now ‘off the menu’ because it hasn’t met one of the many new Federally-mandated prerequisites for its use and application. A paperwork detail, to be sure. But too late for you. Or, when you find out that the cancer that your mom survived in her sixties is no longer being treated because, after all, it doesn’t serve the common good to spend limited resources on the elderly - excuse me, elderly units as 0bamacase now defiens them - in the last few months of their life, does it? But they'll doubtless take comfort in the knowledge that those resources will go to “people of worth,” as genocide enthusiast and Obama advisor Audrey Thomason defines them. Won’t they?

So what happens when:

1. Those goalposts defining the beginning and the end of life at last converge?

2. The decision as to who lives and who dies eventually passes from individuals and to the state - as it most surely will if progressives are allowed to have their way?

If that seems a tad, well, extreme to some of you, consider this: there are those who believe that Dr. Emanuel deserves a medal for his fearless and 'enlightened' rationality. Dr. Singer's prescription for infanticide without guilt are warmly applauded in the halls of academe.

These ideas have consequences: they pave the road to a nightmare world of slaughter and atrocity – and if you don’t think so, then you haven’t been paying attention to the history of the last century. The nudge, the gradual squeeze - and then the shove into submission and oblivion. This is the foundation and the prerequisite for a world in which neither love, nor mercy, nor hope survive. It is a world where all of your hopes, aspirations and dreams, all of your love of country and family not only count for naught, for those hopes and aspirations - and you - will be extinguished as if you never had existed. Because you surely must be if these will-to-power driven monsters are to rule without fear of opposition.

Pope John Paul II in his 1995 work, The Gospel of Life made this observation:

This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable "culture of death". This culture is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency. Looking at the situation from this point of view, it is possible to speak in a certain sense of a war of the powerful against the weak: a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden, and is therefore rejected in one way or another. A person who, because of illness, handicap or, more simply, just by existing, compromises the well-being or life-style of those who are more favored tends to be looked upon as an enemy to be resisted or eliminated. In this way a kind of "conspiracy against life" is unleashed. This conspiracy involves not only individuals in their personal, family or group relationships, but goes far beyond, to the point of damaging and distorting, at the international level, relations between peoples and States.

There is only one way the monsters who seek to impose such a hellish existence on this world can be stopped.

12 posted on 11/23/2011 10:54:48 AM PST by Noumenon (The only 'NO' a liberal understands is the one that arrives at muzzle velocity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson