Yesterday's highly anticipated matchup between Prof. Robert P. George and Prof. Douglas Kmiec over whether there was truly common ground between President Obama and pro-lifers—George says no, Kmiec yes—was not exactly a clash of the titans.
As you can see in the C-SPAN video (which I am unable to embed), George was the only one who answered every question directly. Kmiec dodged frequently, which made the debate less entertaining from an audience standpoint. George Bernard Shaw he ain't. Witness, for example, his response to a question I submitted, which comes up in the video at 58:44.
Kmiec's use of "proportionate reasoning" to excuse support of candidates who vow to expand access to abortion is wrong because cooperation with abortion, unlike participation in war or capital punishment, is an intrinsic evil. The Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer explains that issue well.
Charmaine Yoest, my boss at Americans United for Life, commented in her Twitter feed about Kmiec's introductory statement, in which he alluded to how his views have changed over time: "Kmiec says he has been on 'curious' journey. That's one word for it."
RELATED: Jimmy Akin explains why the concept of "proportionate reasons" comes into play only when the choice is between two candidates who both support intrinsic evil. In that case, one is to vote for the candidate who is most likely to limit evil and least likely to expand it. Kmiec's use of proportionate reasoning with regard to his support of Obama clearly falls outside the acceptable parameters.
