Some words just do not belong together. When two words with seemingly opposite meanings are juxtaposed we call it an oxymoron. When someone does it in defense of an indefensible position, plain ol’ moron will do just fine. Douglas Kmiec is a fine example of the principle. Kmiec claims to be a pro-life Obama supporter.
In his continuing apology of the untenable, Kmiec regales us with the outcome of Obama’s meeting with religious leaders. Kmiec, who claims to have been denied communion because of his stance, makes a remarkably incoherent justification of his absurd position.
[Chi. Tribune] The discussion dwelt at some length on abortion. Obama said he earnestly wants to “discourage” the practice—despite the distortions of some who think if they affix the “pro-abortion—won’t overturn-Roe-label” to the senator, pro-lifers like myself won’t give him the time of day. Sorry, good friends, not this year.
Not to understand that there is more than one rather indirect and elusive judicial way to address an intrinsic evil understates the ingenuity of the devout. Describing the abortion decision as a “difficult, deeply moral one,” Obama sees it as one only the woman can make. Unless her choice affirms life that is not my Catholic view, and I told him so. But disagreement or not, it is abundantly clear from our conversation that Obama shares a common aspiration to reduce the incidence of abortion.
Oh. “Not to understand that there is more than one rather indirect and elusive judicial way to address an intrinsic evil understates the ingenuity of the devout.” That clears things up!
Kmiec wants us to believe that Obama struggles with abortion and understands that the decision is “difficult, deeply moral one.” Nonsense. If Obama is behind reducing the number of abortions through some indirect and elusive judicial way, it is only because he is fine with killing them after they are born. Maybe there is more money to be had by killing them after birth. Who knows?
Kmiec’s disingenuous ingenuity in rationalizing his support of Obama can only result in the absurd phraseology that we just endured. When you defend an absurd oxymoron, you only manage to subtract the oxy.