{"id":1301,"date":"2009-03-11T07:20:19","date_gmt":"2009-03-11T13:20:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=1301"},"modified":"2009-03-11T07:24:50","modified_gmt":"2009-03-11T13:24:50","slug":"a-pro-choice-catholic-and-a-rabbi-walk-into-a-bar","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=1301","title":{"rendered":"A pro-choice Catholic and a Rabbi walk into a bar"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Two columns in the Post.&nbsp; One from the newly reborn <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2009\/03\/10\/AR2009031002842.html?hpid=opinionsbox1\">Kathleen Parker<\/a>, who argues, not that fallaciously, that perhaps lifting the stem cell ban was otiose, as researchers had already found a way around the central moral problem (for some), i.e., the creation of embryonic stem cells from embryos.&nbsp; Or is it the destruction?&nbsp; I&#39;m not sure, because she unfortunately characterizes the moral problem in these two distinct ways.&nbsp; This seems important because some people object to using (therefore destroying) stem cells, others object to <strong>creating<\/strong> embryos solely for the purposes of research, which seems, in some sense, much worse.&nbsp; Nonetheless, other cells, she alleges, work just as well, so lifting the ban on whatever it was that was happening doesn&#39;t amount to much.&nbsp; I have a feeling something in there is false or confused, but this doesn&#39;t strike me as a fallacious argument.&nbsp; So good for Parker, at least we stayed on topic. <\/p>\n<p>Same topic, different writer.&nbsp; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2009\/03\/10\/AR2009031002838.html\">Michael Gerson<\/a> makes the following very puzzling assertion:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p> It is probably not a coincidence that Obama has chosen a Roman Catholic &#8212; Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius &#8212; to implement many of these policies as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Obama has every right to a pro-choice Cabinet. But this appointment seems designed to provide religious cover. It also smacks of religious humiliation &#8212; <strong>like asking a rabbi to serve the pork roast or an atheist to bless the meal. <\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Sebelius, though strongly pro-choice<\/strong>, was capable of occasional compromise. But she consistently fought against the serious enforcement of Kansas&#39;s late-term abortion restrictions. Kansas became a magnet for late-term abortions. <\/p>\n<p>Still, Sebelius insists that &quot;my Catholic faith teaches me that all life is sacred.&quot; This puts her in the same category as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Biden &#8212; Catholics who assert the sanctity of life while defending legal abortion. It has also earned Sebelius a firm rebuke from her archbishop. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>No, it&#39;s not like the Rabbi thing at all: Sebelius is strongly pro-choice, one might presume the rabbi in the joke or the atheist is not &quot;pro pork&quot; or &quot;pro God.&quot;&nbsp; There is much else about this column that would warrant criticism, such as the claim that pro life people&#39;s rights are being trampled upon when they lose arguments:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>There is a common thread running through President Obama&#39;s pro-choice agenda: the coercion of those who disagree with it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Indeed, laws are coercive.&nbsp; Elections, someone said, have consequences.&nbsp; Pointing that out doesn&#39;t mean those consequences (i.e., laws which are &quot;coercive&quot;!) are wrong. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Two columns in the Post.&nbsp; One from the newly reborn Kathleen Parker, who argues, not that fallaciously, that perhaps lifting the stem cell ban was otiose, as researchers had already found a way around the central moral problem (for some), i.e., the creation of embryonic stem cells from embryos.&nbsp; Or is it the destruction?&nbsp; I&#39;m &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/?p=1301\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">A pro-choice Catholic and a Rabbi walk into a bar<\/span> <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[70,72,13,23],"tags":[1992,1994,466,467,465],"class_list":["post-1301","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-kathleen-parker","category-michael-gerson","category-plain-bad-arguments","category-weak-analogy","tag-kathleen-parker","tag-michael-gerson","tag-pro-choice","tag-pro-life","tag-stem-cells"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1301","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1301"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1301\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1301"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1301"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thenonsequitur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1301"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}