Ha! Did you think I was about to endorse a Democrat? Nah. That’s the title of a post by Mark Gordon at Vox Nova, a Catholic writing on a Catholic blog.
For some reason Gordon chose to keep comments closed, so I had no choice but to respond here if I wanted to respond at all.
In a nutshell, Gordon argues that it’s not only OK, but a good thing to vote for a stridently pro-abortion politician, if she also supports policies which one believes would result in fewer actual abortions.
But suppose the same argument were used to justify voting for someone who favored the right to own slaves, on the ground that he also favored subsidies to farmers, which would decrease their dependence on slaves to make a profit, and therefore reduce the actual number of enslaved persons?
I wonder how many modern liberal/leftists would have advocated a slow, gradual reduction of slavery by way of government incentives, rather than an absolute, principled opposition which left no choice but to end it immediately by fighting a war?
I have noticed that when a political position is heretical to the left, the very fact of someone advocating that position is said to disqualify him from public life, let alone public office, regardless of how good he is at his job. Yet when it comes to abortion, we’re told we should be practical and not get so bound up in our principles.