Read here about Catholics voting for Obama, in spite of his extreme views on abortion.

This isn’t difficult. If you are pro-life, don’t vote for Obama. He’s extreme on the issue and there’s Supreme Court judges to appoint. But look, that Catholics might support Obama isn’t exactly news–if every Catholic truly thought abortion was unthinkable–we wouldn’t have abortion in North America.

When the Catholic church speaks out against abortion, this is also not a difficult issue. It’s what they do, or should be doing, whether there’s an election or not (speaking out against taking innocent life–I think there may be something in the ten commandments about that). But enter academics at Catholic universities:

Also in the National Catholic Reporter, Lisa Cahill, a professor of theology at Boston College, wrote that certain bishops have crossed the line from extolling church teaching to becoming political partisans. [W]hen the Catholic Church is perceived to be cheerleaders for one political party a rich faith tradition is badly damaged and loses its prophetic voice.”

Another point that’s not really hard: When any church (and bear in mind, I don’t think abortion is a religious issue) starts to think taking life is AOK–that’s precisely when they lose their “prophetic voice.” But hey, if you want to understand why and how Catholics might not see abortion for the issue it is, look no further than those academics, sitting pretty in their ivory towers at so-called Catholic schools, searching for prophetic voices. Louder than their own, I mean.

I understand the anxiety of wanting to know your baby is alright, while in the womb. But look–how many couples do I know in my own life whose prognosis from these ultrasounds was poor and the baby was perfect? (Three, since you asked.) Does that reduce anxiety? And since the doctors are quite open about there being no treatments when abnormalities are detected–this seems like one more way to make abortion easier, all in search of the “perfect” child.

Unfortunately, little can be done to treat most of the physical anomalies that may be detected early, such as skull malformations. …When the ultrasound delivers bad news, women who may decide to terminate a troubled pregnancy can make that decision earlier.

Some things are not really a choice at all. Killing your disabled child at an earlier stage doesn’t make it any easier.

____________________________

Véronique asks: Did you count me in those three? My youngest was diagnosed by ultrasound with a symmetrical intra-uterine growth retardation, which I later learned — once I went into neonatal bioethics — was very bad news indeed. Thank goodness I didn’t really know what the deal was back then or I would have panicked. Anyhow. Do I need to add that he was born a healthy 7 pounds 4 and completely “normal” (in quotes because he is 2 1/2 today and what toddler is normal, I ask you??)?

Since I started studying bioethics, I have been dumbfounded by the number of people who terminate (abort) on the sole basis of an ultrasound. Granted, the physicians I know would encourage further testing. But I also observed that people who are frightened by the possibility of a disabled child will terminate so fast, it makes your head spin. Almost as if they wanted to do it before they could change their minds. Very troubling.

__________________________

Brigitte wonders: Here’s what the doctor in charge of the program says:

When the ultrasound delivers bad news, women who may decide to terminate a troubled pregnancy can make that decision earlier.

“It’s safer to do it early on. There are less complications,” he says.

Safer? Complications? Whoa, where did that come from?

_____________________________

Andrea adds: No, I didn’t count you, Véronique. So make that four.