Response to Tom

Tom's response to Greg and me is, as one would expect, entirely reasonable, fair, and thoughtful.  I understand the desire of those "who think that Republicans have a very bad recent record on many other important issues" to "want there to be a payoff in real abortion reduction from electing someone who would continue a number of those other policies."  Because I think that, notwithstanding the blemishes on the Republicans' record, the Democrats have, in my lifetime, a more-bad record on many issues that I care about, I realize that I am not facing exactly the same choice as Tom is. 

To be clear:  I am under no illusion that the election of John McCain, or even the reversal of Roe v. Wade, would end or dramatically reduce the number of abortions. I *do* believe that a world in which legislatures have the option of regulating abortions more closely and of not funding them is more likely to have fewer abortions than the one that is coming if the Freedom of Choice Act is passed (even if the latter world includes the social-welfare programs Tom supports).  But, I'm willing to assume it's a wash.

For me, as I wrote here, it is simply not possible (putting aside my passion for school choice, my worries about threats to religious freedom, my preferences with respect to judicial nominees, etc.) to vote for an administration -- even one headed by a charismatic and occasionally inspiring man like Sen. Obama -- that is so beholden to the premise that the intentional destruction of an unborn child (for any reason, at any time) is, ultimately, one that, as a matter of morality, *must* rest entirely with the person contemplating bringing about that destruction (and to aggressively combatting the expression of those who believe otherwise).

I'm not saying that decent, faithful, Catholic people cannot find their way to doing what is not possible for me to do.  (Sure, these people are mistaken, but we all make mistakes.)  But, as I wrote here:

The problem with Roe . . . is not just that because it facilitates wrong choices by private persons; it is also, and fundamentally, at odds with our constitutional structure and with democratic self-government.  As long as Roe is the law, We the People are not allowed to write into law the conviction — assuming that it is or becomes our conviction — that the unborn child ought to be protected from lethal private violence.  The debate is cut off; the conversation is silenced; the "dialogue" that is so often celebrated by the same people who are enthusiastic about Sen. Obama is distorted.

What is at stake in the abortion debate — and, as someone who has known and admired Doug Kmiec for years, I am sorry that he seems to be forgetting this — is not only reducing the number of abortions and helping women considering abortion to find their way to a different choice (though, of course, such reductions and help are important, and one wishes that Democrats for Life had more influence); it as about repairing the damage done to our political community, and to our constitutional order, by a decision that declared that the Constitution itself disables citizens from protecting in law the most vulnerable among us.

In my view, whatever the advantages of an Obama administration as compared to a McCain one (and I'll assume, for present purposes, that there would be some), they are, for me, just not enough.  One can be wrong about a lot, but one needs to be right about this.  The pedagogical and symbolic effect of the Roe / Casey constitutionalization of a gravely misguided morality, and moral anthropology, is, I think, more to be regretted than the effects of any current policies that one can reasonably expect to be revised significantly by an Obama administration.  Or, so it seems to me.