Dear 3L:
Like you, I am disappointed that John McCain has accepted the endorsement of John Hagee. Mr. Hagee promotes some truly appalling libels against the Catholic Church, including those advanced first by European leftists, such as Rolf Hochuth, and then by Catholic liberals, such as John Cornwell, against Pope Pius XII and other Catholic leaders whom they accuse of failing to aid Jews and other victims of Nazism and even of sympathizing with Hitler. Just as the roots of eugenics were in the progressivism of the Weimar period before the rise of the Nazis, the roots of Hageeism in its attempt to link Catholicism and Nazism are in the leftism of the 1960s. Hagee did not invent the black legends he promotes, just as the Nazis did not invent the horrific doctrine of lebens unswerten leben.
I wish McCain would distance himself from Hagee, just as I wish Barack Obama would distance himself from Jeremiah Wright. But my vote in this election will not be determined by whose endorsements these candidates accept or reject. My vote will be determined on the basis of my judgment about what respect for basic human rights requires of me as a voter. I plan to vote for McCain because he fundamentally accepts, and Obama fundamentally rejects, the principle that each and every member of the human family, irrespective not only of race, sex, and ethnicity, but also irrespective of age, size, stage of development or condition of dependency, possesses inherent dignity and, as such, is entitled to the protection of the laws. The killing of human beings in the embryonic and fetal stages is the great human rights issue of our domestic politics. It is an issue on which clear lines have been drawn between the candidates. McCain's record is not perfect, but it is very good. Obama's record is appalling.
I have heard some people argue that, despite their stated differences, there would be little actual difference between an Obama presidency and a McCain presidency on sanctity of life issues. Some have even suggested that Obama is the better choice because his policies would reduce the "need" for abortions. I think this view is deeply misguided for a many reasons. I would be happy to go into detail as to these reasons if you like. For now, I will simply point out that Obama has vowed to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule that the killing of the unborn is a constitutional right---a fundmental principle around which we as a people constitute ourselves as Americans. Moreover, he would revoke the "Mexico City Policy," thus implicating all of us in paying for the killing of unborn children by abortion in foreign nations. And he would seek public funding for abortions at home. He would empower abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood in countless ways. That is why they support him and oppose McCain.
But even if we were to assume what I believe is patently untrue, namely, that Obama's policies would reduce the number of abortions, still the certain death toll under Obama would make it morally impossible for me to support him. Let me say why. Obama and McCain are on opposite sides of what will be the great pro-life struggle of the next decade, namely, the creation by cloning of human embryos to be destroyed in biomedical research. McCain is a co-sponsor of the bill introduced in the Senate by Republican Sam Brownback and Democrat Mary Landrieu to forbid all human cloning, including the creation of human embryos for research. Obama supports legislation that would authorize and fund the creation of human beings for research in which they are killed in the embryonic stage. Even on the most wildly optimistic view, any reduction of abortions under an Obama administration would be hugely offset by the creation and killing of embryonic human beings for research.
To make matters worse, the legislation Obama supports would, in effect, require the destruction of every embryonic human created by cloning. It would make it a crime to save the embryo, by permitting him or her to be rescued by a woman who was prepared to have the embryo implanted in her womb. The bill Obama supports is quite literally a "clone and kill" bill. It pretends to ban "cloning," but it does nothing at all to ban cloning. What it bans, and would punish, is the implantation of any embryo who has the misfortune of coming into existence by cloning. It imposes on that tiny developing member of the human family a sentence of death.
Liberal bioethics writer Will Saletan, who supports embryo-destructive research, has stated with admirable candor and clarity what is being proposed here: “the mass production, exploitation, and destruction of human embryos.” The legislation Obama supports would result in a huge industry in human embryo-production and human embryo-killing. The death toll would quickly become enormous. Assuming that the Democrats retain and strengthen their control of Congress, that legislation will be passed sometime early in the next presidential administration. If McCain is elected president, he will veto it; if Obama is elected, he will sign it into law.
There are many injustices in our country. None can compare, however, with abortion and embryo-destructive research when it comes to the gravity and sheer scale of the injustice. We are talking about life and death here in huge numbers. Indeed, the scope of the killing itself tends to numb our sense of the horror of it. We think about it as little as we can, for understandable reasons. It is hard to get through the day if we focus our minds squarely on the thousands of deliberate and legally authorized killings that go on every day in our nation. (The same was true for opponents of slavery in the 19th century.) But, as I see it, there is no avoiding our moral obligation to make this profound violation of human rights central to our deliberations as voters. If we were the victims, we would expect others to make the protection of our lives central to their decision about voting. So, as I see it, the implications of the Golden Rule are clear. The question for each of us is whether we are willing to live by it.
Like you, I am disappointed that John McCain has accepted the endorsement of John Hagee. Mr. Hagee promotes some truly appalling libels against the Catholic Church, including those advanced first by European leftists, such as Rolf Hochuth, and then by Catholic liberals, such as John Cornwell, against Pope Pius XII and other Catholic leaders whom they accuse of failing to aid Jews and other victims of Nazism and even of sympathizing with Hitler. Just as the roots of eugenics were in the progressivism of the Weimar period before the rise of the Nazis, the roots of Hageeism in its attempt to link Catholicism and Nazism are in the leftism of the 1960s. Hagee did not invent the black legends he promotes, just as the Nazis did not invent the horrific doctrine of lebens unswerten leben.
I wish McCain would distance himself from Hagee, just as I wish Barack Obama would distance himself from Jeremiah Wright. But my vote in this election will not be determined by whose endorsements these candidates accept or reject. My vote will be determined on the basis of my judgment about what respect for basic human rights requires of me as a voter. I plan to vote for McCain because he fundamentally accepts, and Obama fundamentally rejects, the principle that each and every member of the human family, irrespective not only of race, sex, and ethnicity, but also irrespective of age, size, stage of development or condition of dependency, possesses inherent dignity and, as such, is entitled to the protection of the laws. The killing of human beings in the embryonic and fetal stages is the great human rights issue of our domestic politics. It is an issue on which clear lines have been drawn between the candidates. McCain's record is not perfect, but it is very good. Obama's record is appalling.
I have heard some people argue that, despite their stated differences, there would be little actual difference between an Obama presidency and a McCain presidency on sanctity of life issues. Some have even suggested that Obama is the better choice because his policies would reduce the "need" for abortions. I think this view is deeply misguided for a many reasons. I would be happy to go into detail as to these reasons if you like. For now, I will simply point out that Obama has vowed to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule that the killing of the unborn is a constitutional right---a fundmental principle around which we as a people constitute ourselves as Americans. Moreover, he would revoke the "Mexico City Policy," thus implicating all of us in paying for the killing of unborn children by abortion in foreign nations. And he would seek public funding for abortions at home. He would empower abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood in countless ways. That is why they support him and oppose McCain.
But even if we were to assume what I believe is patently untrue, namely, that Obama's policies would reduce the number of abortions, still the certain death toll under Obama would make it morally impossible for me to support him. Let me say why. Obama and McCain are on opposite sides of what will be the great pro-life struggle of the next decade, namely, the creation by cloning of human embryos to be destroyed in biomedical research. McCain is a co-sponsor of the bill introduced in the Senate by Republican Sam Brownback and Democrat Mary Landrieu to forbid all human cloning, including the creation of human embryos for research. Obama supports legislation that would authorize and fund the creation of human beings for research in which they are killed in the embryonic stage. Even on the most wildly optimistic view, any reduction of abortions under an Obama administration would be hugely offset by the creation and killing of embryonic human beings for research.
To make matters worse, the legislation Obama supports would, in effect, require the destruction of every embryonic human created by cloning. It would make it a crime to save the embryo, by permitting him or her to be rescued by a woman who was prepared to have the embryo implanted in her womb. The bill Obama supports is quite literally a "clone and kill" bill. It pretends to ban "cloning," but it does nothing at all to ban cloning. What it bans, and would punish, is the implantation of any embryo who has the misfortune of coming into existence by cloning. It imposes on that tiny developing member of the human family a sentence of death.
Liberal bioethics writer Will Saletan, who supports embryo-destructive research, has stated with admirable candor and clarity what is being proposed here: “the mass production, exploitation, and destruction of human embryos.” The legislation Obama supports would result in a huge industry in human embryo-production and human embryo-killing. The death toll would quickly become enormous. Assuming that the Democrats retain and strengthen their control of Congress, that legislation will be passed sometime early in the next presidential administration. If McCain is elected president, he will veto it; if Obama is elected, he will sign it into law.
There are many injustices in our country. None can compare, however, with abortion and embryo-destructive research when it comes to the gravity and sheer scale of the injustice. We are talking about life and death here in huge numbers. Indeed, the scope of the killing itself tends to numb our sense of the horror of it. We think about it as little as we can, for understandable reasons. It is hard to get through the day if we focus our minds squarely on the thousands of deliberate and legally authorized killings that go on every day in our nation. (The same was true for opponents of slavery in the 19th century.) But, as I see it, there is no avoiding our moral obligation to make this profound violation of human rights central to our deliberations as voters. If we were the victims, we would expect others to make the protection of our lives central to their decision about voting. So, as I see it, the implications of the Golden Rule are clear. The question for each of us is whether we are willing to live by it.
Yours faithfully,
Robert George
===========================================
Robert P. George
McCormick Professor of
Jurisprudence
Director, James Madison Program in
American
Ideals and Institutions
Princeton University
244 Corwin Hall
Princeton, NJ 08544
(609) 258-3270
(609) 258-6837 (fax)
