Logic, Applied

Apparently, the number of prominent academics who are a) "staunchly pro-life" and b) supporting Obama is growing. They seem to be relying on the he resolutely supports eliminating any and all barriers to abortion, but it's ok because the number of abortions will actually decline if we vote him in. How do you get a passing grade in Freshman Philosophy with this kind of reasoning?

So here is a take-down of this reasoning:

Tongue-in-cheek: "Bill Donahue has written a parody targeting public Catholics who endorse Obama -- 'I'm Catholic, Staunchly Anti-Racist, and Support David Duke':

I believe racism is an unspeakable evil, yet I support David Duke, who is pro-racism. I do not support him because he is pro-racism, but in spite of it. Is that a proper choice for a committed Catholic?

As someone who has worked with minorities all his life, I answer with a resounding yes. Despite what some say, the list of what the Catholic Church calls 'intrinsically evil acts' does not begin and end with racism. In fact, there are many intrinsically evil acts, and a committed Catholic must consider all of them in deciding how to vote.

Last November, the U.S. bishops released 'Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,' a 30-page document that provides several examples of intrinsically evil acts: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, torture, racism, and targeting noncombatants in acts of war.

Duke's support for racist rights has led some to the conclusion that no Catholic can vote for him. That's a mistake. While I have never swayed in my conviction that racism is an unspeakable evil, I believe that we have lost the racism battle -- permanently. A vote for Duke's opponent does not guarantee the end of racism in America. Not even close.

The parody's logic would apply to the writers of a set of letters (here and especially here) in this morning's Enquirer."

(Via Ten Reasons.)