Voting for the "lesser" of two evils

[Ani_Ibi]

Ani Ibi:

Invoking “moral relativism” is not some magic phrase that does your moral thought for you. Use the act-intention-circumstances model to show how my position is relativistic; then maybe we can have something to discuss. If you can’t do so, then this discussion has simply become the exchange of pejorative labels, which is pointless.

*Vern, you quoted the wrong person. I believe Philip P said this, not I.
*

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Please set out the the act-intention-circumstances model.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ani Ibi:

Please set out the the act-intention-circumstances model.

I just did that:

First the act. The act is supporting pro-abortion politicians – people who want to increase the availability of abortion by paying for it with tax dollars (as one example.)

Second the intention. The intention is to support a politician who is pro-abortion. You can’t vote for someone and say, “Gee! I didn’t know he was pro-abortion!”

Third, the circumstances. The circumstances are that on average between 3,000 and 4,000 innocent children are murdered every day in this country. There are politicians who support and approve of that, and who want to use taxpayer money to pay for more abortions. There are also politicians who say they are Catholic and take pro-abortion positions – causing great scandal to the Church.

 

[Philip_P]

Ani Ibi:

Please set out the the act-intention-circumstances model.

From the Catechism:

1750

The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

[1751](javascript:OpenPopupWindow(%22%3cp%3e%3cA%20HREF=# onclick=window.opener.SetPage()

The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

[1752](javascript:OpenPopupWindow(%22%3cp%3e%3cA%20HREF=# onclick=window.opener.SetPage()

In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

[1754](javascript:OpenPopupWindow(%22%3cp%3e%3cA%20HREF=# onclick=window.opener.SetPage()

The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

(Please note that what I have been calling “act itself” should more accurately have been called “object.” I will use the term “object” going forward.)

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Since you want it, Phillip, here it is:

First the act. The act is supporting pro-abortion politicians – people who want to increase the availability of abortion by paying for it with tax dollars (as one example.)
Second the intention. The intention is to support a politician who is pro-abortion. You can’t vote for someone and say, “Gee! I didn’t know he was pro-abortion!”

Third, the circumstances. The circumstances are that on average between 3,000 and 4,000 innocent children are murdered every day in this country. There are politicians who support and approve of that, and who want to use taxpayer money to pay for more abortions. There are also politicians who say they are Catholic and take pro-abortion positions – causing great scandal to the Church.

And there is one more point – your tap dance to find justification for your act (rationalization.) You keep pretending that pro-choice is not pro-abortion. That’s like saying being White is not being Caucasian.

Thank you for finally applying some Catholic moral analysis. Let’s examine what you’ve done.

First the act. The act is supporting pro-abortion politicians

The intention is to support a politician who is pro-abortion

You’ve designated supporting a politician who is pro-abortion in both the object and the intent. It can’t be both. The source of your error is that you have failed to separate the object from the intent. The object is voting – going into the booth, casting a ballot.

Now let’s look at intent. You have supporting a pro-abortion politician as an intent. If that were truly the intent, the voter would be in the wrong. Abortion is objectively wrong, something which we all agree on, and which I have specifically said, despite your spurious allegations of “moral relativism” Yet by what occult magic do you claim to read a voter’s mind, to know his or her intent? How do you know the object (voting) was not made with the intent to support a pro-social justice politician, or to support a politician dedicated to a peaceful alternative to war? I don’t know that and you don’t know that. Your position presumptiously claimes such knowledge, however, whereas mine recognizes legitimate limits.

I don’t think, for instance, a vote for Bush was wise, but I don’t claim that one sinned by voting for Bush. You, on the other hand, would like to not only claim that a vote for Kerry was unwise, but immoral to boot.

Third, the circumstances. The circumstances are that on average between 3,000 and 4,000 innocent children are murdered every day in this country.

You left out the most important circumstance – the election itself. There would be no vote if there were no election occurring, and this means that there must also be candidates. The likely outcome of electing a candidate must therefore be taken into account. In the last election, for instance, neither candidate was likely to reduce the abortion rate (in fact, according to the CDC numbers, abortion rates went up since 2000 – though be careful with these numbers as they do not include CA, AK, or HI). If neither candidate is actually going to do something about the abortion rate, then how exactly does the number of children being killed become relevant?

This also goes into a point Andreas admitted above: Catholics may vote for such a candidate only if it represents a toleration in order to prevent larger grave evil advocated by the other candidate.

Now I ask you, if NEITHER candidate is going to reduce abortion, are we justified then in ignoring issues such as war, poverty, and basic justice?

That’s like saying being White is not being Caucasian.

Um, I’m just not even going to touch that one. Best to give your racial theories a wide berth.

 

[Philip_P]

Andreas Hofer:

Since the issue of unjust war has been raised, let’s compare the current war with abortion. Suppose I think the current war is unjustified. Even if it is, that does not mean it could not be prosecuted in good conscience by someone who, with a well-formed conscience and perhaps privy to information I don’t have, has decided otherwise. Waging war in general does not fall into the same category as procuring abortion or assisting thereby. A strictly utilitarian analysis also reveals that the current war has, in the course of two years, led to 2000 American service deaths, and counting all Iraqi deaths (civilian, theoretically “just” defenders, and theoretically “unjust/evil” defenders or insurgents) Probably does not top 100,000 even by the most liberal estimates. In that same time period, U.S. abortion alone will have taken roughly 2.6 million lives, not to mention the abortions funded by our tax money overseas. So one situation is not clearly evil, the other is. The former situation accounts for 25 times more murders. How is that a toleration of lesser evil?

Two points. 1) Catholics have no more leeway to support an unjust war than they do to support any other unjust killing, abortion included. Where the “leeway” in war lies is in making the evaluation of whether it is just or not. Once you’ve made that evaluation, though, you are bound by your conscience just as surely as you are bound by your conscience on abortion. The problem with voting guides such as Catholic Answers, with their language of “non-negotiable issues” is that they give the impression other issues are negotiable. They’re not. Negotiation’s over by the time you enter the voting booth.

1. The major difference between abortion and war is that abortion is done by private individuals and war is carried out by the state. That means that every Iraqi killed has been killed in my name and in yours. The same cannot be said for abortion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

You’ve designated supporting a politician who is pro-abortion in both the object and the intent. It can’t be both. The source of your error is that you have failed to separate the object from the intent. The object is voting – going into the booth, casting a ballot.

Wrong. Do you go to the booth and cast a ballot for its own sake? Or do you do it for a more fundamental reason – such as to elect your choice to office?

If you want to quibble, then phrase it as:

The act is voting for a pro-abortion politician.

The intent is to elect a pro-abortion politician.
Philip P:

Now let’s look at intent. You have supporting a pro-abortion politician as an intent. If that were truly the intent, the voter would be in the wrong.

Who votes for a pro-abortion politician supports a pro-abortion politician.
Philip P:

Abortion is objectively wrong, something which we all agree on, and which I have specifically said, despite your spurious allegations of “moral relativism” Yet by what occult magic do you claim to read a voter’s mind, to know his or her intent?

By what occult magic do you say voting for a pro-abortion politician is not supporting a pro-abortion politician?

When a man walks into a liquor store wearing a ski mask and carrying a gun, shoots the clerk, cleans out the cash register, and runs off it doesn’t take any “occult magic” to know his intent was to rob the store.

When a man votes for a pro-abortion politician, it doesn’t take any “occult magic” to know his intent was to support that pro-abortion politician.
Philip P:

How do you know the object (voting) was not made with the intent to support a pro-social justice politician, or to support a politician dedicated to a peaceful alternative to war?

Because the Church says one can differ – even with the Holy Father – on matters of “social justice” or war, but never on abortion.
Philip P:

I don’t think, for instance, a vote for Bush was wise, but I don’t claim that one sinned by voting for Bush. You, on the other hand, would like to not only claim that a vote for Kerry was unwise, but immoral to boot.

Yep. He not only is pro-abortion, but also brings grave scandal on the Church by claiming to be a Catholic while publicly supporting abortion.
Philip P:
The likely outcome of electing a candidate must therefore be taken into account. In the last election, for instance, neither candidate was likely to reduce the abortion rate (in fact, according to the CDC numbers, abortion rates went up since 2000 – though be careful with these numbers as they do not include CA, AK, or HI). If neither candidate is actually going to do something about the abortion rate, then how exactly does the number of children being killed become relevant?

You assume that unless there is an immediate reduction in abortion, the candidate is doing nothing.

Yet Bush is nominating people to the bench who would be less willing to uphold at least some of the more extreme positions on abortion – and the Democrats have made support for Roe vs Wade a litmus test.
Philip P:

This also goes into a point Andreas admitted above: Catholics may vote for such a candidate only if it represents a toleration in order to prevent larger grave evil advocated by the other candidate.

And what evil is worse than the killing of 3,000 to 4,000 children a day?

I think we can agree that the Holocaust was a “great evil.” The death toll in this country from abortion since Roe vs Wade is several times greater than the death toll of the Holocaust.
Philip P:

Now I ask you, if NEITHER candidate is going to reduce abortion, are we justified then in ignoring issues such as war, poverty, and basic justice?

There’s your relativism – **you **decide that both candidates are equal and allows you to pretend that right and wrong have somehow changed.

 

[mlchance]

All of this talk about intent has missed an important facet of Catholic moral teaching: A good intent does not make an immoral action a good action. The Church’s teaching is clear on this.

Her teaching is also clear on this: In the absence of genuinely proportionate reasons, no Catholic can, in good conscience, vote for a pro-abortion politician. In order for a reason to be genuinely proportionate, for a pro-abortion politician to receive a Catholic’s vote, he would have to be running against a candidate who advocates something more destructive to innocent human life and to society than is abortion.

No such election choices face anyone in the U.S.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[seabird3579]

mlchance:

Her teaching is also clear on this: In the absence of genuinely proportionate reasons, no Catholic can, in good conscience, vote for a pro-abortion politician. In order for a reason to be genuinely proportionate, for a pro-abortion politician to receive a Catholic’s vote, he would have to be running against a candidate who advocates something more destructive to innocent human life and to society than is abortion…

This past election (2004) Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party was 100% unequivocably Pro-Life and it was at the Top of their agenda. The majority of Catholics did not vote for him even though they had the option. Here I believe many either deliberately ignored the Church’s teaching and rationalized, or were ignorant of the Church’s teachings. Either way, we ended up with someone to this day, who has done very little to advance pro-life issues. Choosing the lesser of two evils, is still choosing evil.

Or, put another way, “the ends do not justify the means.”

 

[Philip_P]

mlchance:

All of this talk about intent has missed an important facet of Catholic moral teaching: A good intent does not make an immoral action a good action. The Church’s teaching is clear on this.

Yet voting is not intrinsically immoral. Vern has tried to argue that it is, by combining object and intent together to create a pseudo-action he calls “voting for a pro-abortion politician,” but this tactic ignores the difference between object and intent.

Her teaching is also clear on this: In the absence of genuinely proportionate reasons, no Catholic can, in good conscience, vote for a pro-abortion politician. In order for a reason to be genuinely proportionate, for a pro-abortion politician to receive a Catholic’s vote, he would have to be running against a candidate who advocates something more destructive to innocent human life and to society than is abortion.

I cannot name a single pro-abortion politician in this country. China, now, they have pro-abortion policies. People there are forced to have abortions. Unless you are claiming that politicians in the US plan on demanding that women have abortions, the lablel “pro-abortion politician” is a mere rhetorical ploy.

As far as proportionate reasons, that’s hardly something you, or anyone else, can claim to pronounce infallibly on. For instance, I seriously believe that the policies of President Bush have seriously imperilled the health and stability of the US while doing nothing to reduce abortions. That, to me, is proportionate reason enough to oppose him. Could I be wrong? Sure. I’m only human. I have no supernatural abilities to read the future. But you know what - neither do you. Your judgment is as limited and potentially flawed as anyone elses.

 

[mlchance]

Philip P:

I cannot name a single pro-abortion politician in this country.

How ludicrously disengenous, much like the rest of your post. Senator Kerry is a pro-abortion politician. So is Senator Clinton, as was her husband while president. There’s also Senators Kennedy and, just for fairness, Spector.

And here we thought you were interested in an honest discussion.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Yet voting is not intrinsically immoral. Vern has tried to argue that it is, by combining object and intent together to create a pseudo-action he calls “voting for a pro-abortion politician,” but this tactic ignores the difference between object and intent.

As I pointed out, you can split hairs if you wish and call the action “voting for a pro-abortion politician” and the intent “to elect a pro-abortion politician.”

Voting is not done in a vacuum, nor is it done for its own sake.

To vote for a pro-abortion candidate is an immoral act.
Philip P:

I cannot name a single pro-abortion politician in this country.

John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Edward Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer – the list goes on and on.
Philip P:

China, now, they have pro-abortion policies. People there are forced to have abortions. Unless you are claiming that politicians in the US plan on demanding that women have abortions, the lablel “pro-abortion politician” is a mere rhetorical ploy.

To pretend that “pro-choice” is fundamentally different from “pro-abortion” is wrong.

 

[ben_dy]

seabird3579:

This past election (2004) Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party was 100% unequivocably Pro-Life and it was at the Top of their agenda. The majority of Catholics did not vote for him even though they had the option. Here I believe many either deliberately ignored the Church’s teaching and rationalized, or were ignorant of the Church’s teachings. Either way, we ended up with someone to this day, who has done very little to advance pro-life issues. Choosing the lesser of two evils, is still choosing evil.

Or, put another way, “the ends do not justify the means.”

Peroutka did get the nod from FORMER Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore (of the Ten Commandment’s showdown) yet received just over .001% of the votes cast state-wide I believe: no one knew who he was and I would bet that the votes he did garner were as a result of Moore’s endorsement and the folks that were still following the monument showdown. I had no clue to who the man was - and, to be honest, although I was a supporter of Moore’s right to display the Ten Commandment’s monument the whole business was so politicized and Moore’s brand of Southern Baptism makes me yearn for less ecumenical times! Although I did buy Moore’s book, So Help Me God and his legal views on ‘separation of church and state’ while not fit to print in a legal journal is an example of good down-south “lawyerin’”.

Had I known of Peroutka’s stance on abortion, and other issues, I likely would have voted for him, though - I did not shade a box in the presidential category at all and there was certainly no chance of Peroutka being a ‘spoiler’ for any candidate. Had I known more about the man - and I’ve no one to blame but myself as he WAS on the ballot - I likely could have voted for him with a clear conscince: and I think my laziness is epidemic - I would much rather know that I could vote for someone with no chance of winning but who (if he does and did) live up to the morals for which he is/was supporting because I could, at least, wake up the morning after the election and look myself in the mirror (and NOT have to go to bed at night equivocating in my prayers!).

To be very honest if Pat Buchanan could make a few slight changes I think he would be an exceptional candidate - if he would only embrace the whole of Catholic justice I actually believe that he could be - or could have been at one time - the most ‘votable’ candidate of the lot. To me, most pro-life candidates use the term as a ‘talking point’ hoping to garner some votes and it’s included in the Republican party platform for the same reason: I believe it should return - somehow - to a state issue and I do believe you would see a handful of states, and their peoples, step up and do away with the procedure as it is now so widely used. THEN it could come before the USSC again and Roe would get the scrutiny that it has deserved but never had. Not going to happen in my lifetime, however…

This country needs a new constitution - perhaps another revolution - and not the 1994 Newt Gingrich type: his brand of individualistic morality is NOT the type that I would want my children to imitate. If only a man like John Roberts had true political aspirations!

If NOTHING else, it’s time to find alternatives to the two-party system that will allow the possibility of GENUINE reform… not a Ralph Nadar Green Party…

 

[seabird3579]

ben_dy:

To be very honest if Pat Buchanan could make a few slight changes I think he would be an exceptional candidate - if he would only embrace the whole of Catholic justice I actually believe that he could be - or could have been at one time - the most ‘votable’ candidate of the lot…

I am finding out that a lot of people did not know who Mr. Peroutka was because the Constitution Party members, for some reason, were left off of a lot of “voting guides” that went to Catholic and Protestant churches. I think that is an outrage.

To comment on your quote above, before voting for the Constitution Party last election, my favorite candidate has always been Alan Keyes, followed by Pat Buchanan. Alan Keyes is extremely intelligent and debates christian/political issues with precision and elegance. How long has it been since you’ve seen that combination in a candidate?!?

I’m also interested in the broader Catholic social justice issues such as a Living Wage and decent safety and labor standards for all workers. And, I’m sure we all want a cleaner environment. The difference is – should the States handle these issues or the Federal government. I believe our Constitution spells out in black and white that the federal government’s overal jurisdiction is pretty limited. It’s powers need to be scaled back, while the States need to step up to the plate and enact laws that the People want locally.

 

[PLAL]

seabird3579:

my favorite candidate has always been Alan Keyes, followed by Pat Buchanan. Alan Keyes is extremely intelligent and debates christian/political issues with precision and elegance. How long has it been since you’ve seen that combination in a candidate?!?

I agree. Dr. Keyes has been the best Presidential Candidate out there for the last 20 years. I just don’t know how we can get him into the White House.

One thing about Keyes - the mainstream media can’t stand him (which is a good thing) and neither the Dems or Repubs want him in debates (he’s one of the top debaters in the world). Time is running out for Keyes but he would probably be one of the best Presidents in the history of the U.S. if only we can find a way to get him in.

Similar Thread…

Catholic and Democrat

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1094326&posted=1#post1094326

 

[ben_dy]

seabird3579:

I am finding out that a lot of people did not know who Mr. Peroutka was because the Constitution Party members, for some reason, were left off of a lot of “voting guides” that went to Catholic and Protestant churches. I think that is an outrage.

To comment on your quote above, before voting for the Constitution Party last election, my favorite candidate has always been Alan Keyes, followed by Pat Buchanan. Alan Keyes is extremely intelligent and debates christian/political issues with precision and elegance. How long has it been since you’ve seen that combination in a candidate?!?

I agree with the first sentiment but, again, I feel as if I’ve myself to blame for my lack of knowledge - like the majority of Americans I too often feel that I’ve only two choices and, as neither have been particularly attractive to me in the past 30 years or so, I tend NOT to do the research and, therefore, NOT to vote for any presidential candidate: I don’t know that I blame the churches at all… I blame myself and other voters.

seabird3579:

I’m also interested in the broader Catholic social justice issues such as a Living Wage and decent safety and labor standards for all workers. And, I’m sure we all want a cleaner environment. The difference is – should the States handle these issues or the Federal government. I believe our Constitution spells out in black and white that the federal government’s overal jurisdiction is pretty limited. It’s powers need to be scaled back, while the States need to step up to the plate and enact laws that the People want locally.

Again, I agree with your sentiments - I just don’t know how ‘doable’ relegating most activities now employed by the Federal Gov’t would be: since the Civil War there have been very few decades in which the local voter has been truly knowledgeable of local candidates and issues and with the boundaries of many corporations being not only across state lines but global, it may be unrealistic to have different laws, for instance, in each state for large corporations. Every state is willing to ‘give’ a bit to secure jobs, for instance, to it’s peoples and that promotes genuine competition but sometimes at great expense. No one wants to live in a ‘Love Canal’ zone but, without federal regulation, each state may be caught between securing jobs and allowing, for instance, varying degrees of pollution. I would hate to think that competition would retract to the point where it’s jobs over anything but that may well be the stance if we did away with Federal regulations. As much as I don’t care for a bloated Federal Gov’t (and we’ve seen too recently that even the best intentioned agencies fail dismally where state agencies could address needs more readily and knowledgeable) some Federal intervention, as Madison and others conceded, is necessary in regulating commerce even with all the baggage that now carries and which could not have been foreseen at the time of our country’s founding. On the other hand states have ceded, by Federal proclamation, rights which I think properly belong to the states yet, again, I don’t know that the wisest choices always result from state laws (just as one example, look at how ‘no-fault’ divorce spread like wildfire - a shaming incident, in my opinion, in which states caved to individualism without thought of the harms that would be caused). I think we must proceed, but cautiously, in reducing those parts of the Federal Gov’t which could best be supplied by the states and assure that the states are ready to take on the job(s) which the Fed cedes to local enforcement.

One instance that you bring up is a Living (or Livable) wage - I’m not how that could be best handled at the state level: in one instance, a lower wage is likely to bring in more jobs and yet might harm the average worker. We have to realize how important a roll greed has come to play in the corporate economy and carefully examine the economics of social justice, as defined by the Church, when it comes to keeping rampant capitalism at bay. “Corporate greed” are not just buzz words - we’ve seen real evidence and seen the genuine harm that it can do to all.

 

[seabird3579]

Ben,

I’d like to give just a general commentary on what you just posted.

First of all, I’m no legal scholar or businessman for that matter, but I do consider myself to be a faithful Catholic. When I look at the national or states’ economies, I tend to look at it through the eyes of Christ – as much as I am able to understand His many statements within the gospels.

For Catholics like myself, the Economy is ultimately in God’s hands. We as christians are expected to uphold christian principles and virtues. If I found myself the head of a large corporation, my number one goal would not be to increase profits at the expense of injustice to my employees. Now, what do I mean by that?

As a Christian, I am expected to make sure that my employees receive a decent day’s pay for a decent day’s work. Plain and simple. Any rationalizing that I do regarding profits, sustainability, etc…do not reflect my faith in God or the gospels. Instead, I’m placing my faith in me and the world. Those who have done that have produced “the fruit” to proove it.

When I place my trust in God, and live by His principles, then I am at peace. IF He finds me worthy and chooses to bless my efforts, I will be blessed. If my business does not succeed while following God’s plan, maybe I’m not meant to be in that particular business, or the Lord is trying to get my attention for further spiritual changes within myself.

There are many other specific issues I could comment on but, the bottom line is God is in charge, we follow His gospel, we don’t become anxious about the future and ask God to sign up to our plan. We Trust, and we sign up to His plan.

Is this asking a lot? Isn’t this quite a heavy burden? Yes, to both. And, if you’ve been used to being in control and sidelining God — it will be a Big change. However, the blessings to follow will be immeasureable. Yes, persecutions too (Christ also was persecuted) – but the Peace that Passes Understanding cannot be gained any other way.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

ben and seabird: what are your bottom lines on abortion in the political arena? Who are the candidates who most closely adhere to Catholic teaching on abortion?

 

[seabird3579]

Ani Ibi:

ben and seabird: what are your bottom lines on abortion in the political arena? Who are the candidates who most closely adhere to Catholic teaching on abortion?

From my point of view, Alan Keyes (politically homeless, I think) Michael Peroutka (Constitution Party) and Pat Buchanan, I believe.

It doesn’t appear to me that the mainstream Republican Party wants to embrace those who are 100% pro-life. So we basically have a two-headed mega-party which I like to refer to as the Republicrats or the Demonicans.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Philip P:

If neither candidate is actually going to do something about the abortion rate, then how exactly does the number of children being killed become relevant?

Although it’s not ideal to let a broader hypothetical devolve into a particular analysis, let’s run with this particular question in regards to Bush/Kerry.

Candidate Kerry promised to appoint “pro-choice” judges. AFAIK, he intended to reinstate Clinton-era funding of overseas abortion. He supported federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, which he would have the power to release. He also would continue the Clinton veto of partial birth abortion. In a speech to NARAL he lauded the pro-choice cause. (Since this is all from my recollection of the campaign and I can’t cite anything, I’m not married to any one particular assertion).

Candidate Bush on the other hand, began his first term by ending funding for overseas abortions and instituting an (albeit still not ideal) compromise to block funding for creation of new embryonic stem cell lines. His judicial nominees have consistently come under attack from the left on the issue of abortion, which means they must at least be palatable to pro-lifers. While I can’t speak to the Unborn Infants Protection act (one might look up Sen. Kerry’s vote on it), I do know that the partial birth abortion ban and blocks on stem cell funding and foreign abortions are progress that, if we can take a politician at his word, would not have occurred under a President Kerry.

This, to me, should give one pause when saying that neither candidate would have had an impact. Could either one have immediately outlawed abortion? No. Did one do things toward protecting life that the other promised not to do? Yes.