In one of those posts I outlined the Catholic moral principle of double effect. In it I outlined how I believe a vote for Romney fulfills the double effect criteria, but also how "3rd-party" or abstention fails that criteria. I also reiterated that I do not believe that Mitt Romney is the ideal pro-life candidate. However, when someone asked me if Romney was an acceptable alternative to Obama, I replied that he's the only alternative to Obama.
Two days ago, my colleague at Les Femmes published a letter from a friend of hers, dating back to their days of rescuing at the abortuaries. I never met the gentleman, but based on Mary Ann's remarks, I'm sure that he's been a dedicated pro-life activist over the years. She also refers to National Right to Life's endorsement of Mitt Romney as a "pro-life candidate". For the record, I ceased taking National Right to Life seriously many years ago, owing to their problematic endorsements of some candidates and their snubbing of truly pro-life candidates on the other.
As you read the comments, note the ones from Ray Schneider. I think he is spot-on. He brings logic and common sense to the discussion - qualities that regrettably are lacking in Mr. Egger's letter.
As I read the letter, I detect jaded, curmudgeonly cynicism that is all too common in pro-life activists that have been around for a while and have found their efforts undermined by the very institutions that should be supporting them - for example, the government and the church. As an activist myself, I too have had to battle that affliction; and there have been times when I failed. That said, while the cynicism is understandable, it cannot be condoned.
I see the cynicism in what I'll call the "self-fulfilling prophesies" peppered throughout the piece. For example:
- It matters not which one is President. Nothing will change regarding abortion. Abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy and it will still be no matter which liar is President. Planned Parenthood has been federally funded for decades, regardless of which Party controls Congress or the Presidency, and it will still be federally funded no matter which liar is President.
Here's the next paragraph in its entirety:
- Every four years it's the same old blah, blah, blah, blah - "you must vote for the lesser of two evils or the world will end". How low will we go? Is there anyone with an "R" after their name that we wouldn't vote for? A year ago the pro-life rubes were saying “anybody but Romney” and now he is their darling?
- Every four years it's the same old blah, blah, blah, blah - "you must vote for the lesser of two evils [Here we see the Protestant cadard "lesser of two evils". Not once in these conversations has anyone disputed me in terms of the Principle of Double Effect. Perhaps they don't know it, given the lousy catechesis we've received.] or the world will end". [Elections do have consequences. If he's denying the crucial reality of this one, he is deluding himself.] How low will we go? Is there anyone with an "R" after their name that we wouldn't vote for? [With all due respect, what kind of fool question is that? In 2000, I was instrumental in giving Connie Morella (R) her sole 3-way race.] A year ago the pro-life rubes were saying “anybody but Romney” and now he is their darling? [Does Mr. Egger betray here a sense of perspective? Last year we were in the primary season, when there were candidates that I believe were superior to Romney. My favorites didn't win. Shall I pout and stomp off with my toys? Yes Romney is far superior to Obama - and that's still not saying a whole lot. That does not make Romney "my darling".]
- And no, I am not looking for the "perfect" candidate. But I will not vote for a pro-abortion liar like Romney. And I am sick of being told that not voting for Romney is the same as voting for Obama, as if the liar with an (R) after his name is the default vote for a Catholic.
- And no, I am not looking for the "perfect" candidate. But I will not vote for a pro-abortion liar like Romney. And I am sick of being told that not voting for Romney is the same as voting for Obama, [I did post the following in the comments at the other blog, but found them to be ignored: a vote diverted from Romney for whatever reason is one less vote that Obama needs to overcome to win election. He's "sick" of being told that? What I said was simple fact. So why does that make him sick? This is is quintessential curmudgeonly behavior to the point of being unreasonable.] as if the liar with an (R) after his name is the default vote for a Catholic. [I mean no judgment on Mr Eggers, but his remark here is utterly clueless. That is not how Catholics vote; this is cynicism, pure and simple.]