As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called “The Audacity of Hope.” A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life — but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.
What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website — an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our educational system, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.” Fair-minded words.
After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and I thanked him. And I didn’t change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that — when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe — that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.
Funny, reasonable, erudite, charming, broad, a little bit for everyone – which rather conceals the fact the he steps over his own views in a single clause (“I didn’t change my underlying position”) to major on the “can’t we all just get along” theme that is the central substance of his talk.
As In understand it the teaching of the Catholic Church is that abortion is intrinsically evil. To me, “can’t we all just get along” with intrinsic evil doesn’t seem in fact to be quite so erudite, charming, broad or reasonable. It might be worthwhile to read “Letter from Birmingham Jail’s” articulate critique of “the moderate” and then place it alongside the President’s words.
Common ground, is that similar to a listening process?
What sad times these are, that we should have this man as president and that this university, once such a bedrock of faith, has fallen so low. Sinful nation that we are, the rulers we have are a judgment upon us.
“The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm.”
Which one has put his/her life on the line to back their beliefs? advance their agenda?make a point?
we must listen until those who disagree with me finally agree
My grandson will soon graduate from high school. He was accepted by Notre Dame. He declined. I am proud of him. Statmann
Good for your son, Statmann.
For those specifically interested in finding a faithful Catholic college, or just getting a look at what’s out there:
http://www.catholichighered.org/TheNewmanGuide/tabid/356/Default.aspx
They have an interesting article on Notre Dame, the thrust of which is: it’s a mixed bag. As far as I can tell, the article hasn’t been updated in the wake of today’s scandal.
The bottom line is this is the same anti-life agenda tied up with a pretty bow of cliches and platitudes. I’ve written [url=http://www.examiner.com/x-9452-DC-Catholic-Living-Examiner~y2009m5d17-President-Obama-offers-nothing-new-to-the-prolife-community-in-Notre-Dame-commencement-address]a more detailed commentary here[/url].
I don’t support abortion but this was a great speech. Disappointed to see all the negativity here. This is a case where we should be able to learn to get along.
What are we learning to “get along” about, little searchers? I’m very serious here because I don’t understand what you mean – what are we getting along about? And how do we “get along” with the agenda of someone who voted four times as a state senator to deny medical treatment for babies born from failed abortions? And who nominated for HHS secretary someone who accepts large campaign funds from a doctor nationally notorious for his partial-birth abortion business? What does this mean “we should be able to learn to get along”?
little searchers (#10) – the problem for us ‘pro-life’ folk is that the sanctity of innocent life can have no middle ground, nor can one sit to the side and try to ‘get along’. I’m more than happy to say a democratic society needs to find a [i]via media[/i] between socialistic and capitalistic views, or, rather, to be able to live with what the electorate asks for. This issue, however, is absolutely fundamental – freedom of speech is a non-issue if innocent life is not sacred; freedom of religion is a non-issue if innocent life is not sacred; morality and ethics are non-issues if innocent life is not sacred; war or no war is a non-issue, capital punishment is a non-issue, the economy is a non-issue, care for the poor is a non-issue, racism is a non-issue — if innocent life isn’t absolutely protected.
There is something to be said for the President’s call to stop demonizing one’s opposing side; however, to try to ‘get along’ is simply wrong. To be ‘tolerant’ of opposing opinion would be, for me, a sin of enormous proportion, much as I would very often rather do that (and, sadly, have at times).
Yes, Paula Loughlin, the moment I read about this speech I thought of Rowan Williams, trying to keep two irreconcilable opinions talking.
Why should I learn to “get along” with the idea that it’s okay to kill babies? It’s okay because the mother, according to the President, didn’t make the decision casually?
It was a good speech as I said in post #2. Unsurprisingly and uncontentiously the President offered no alteration in his own view. Much more disappointingly, for a man who appealed for reasoned discussion, he offered no reasoned discussion, and indeed almost no mention, of his own views and actions. In other words he didn’t do himself what he appealed for others to do. He avoided doing the very thing that he appealed for others to do.
This is a political move to carve off the liberal Catholic voters to reliably vote Democrat. They will say “see, he views abortion as a very serious issue and wants to minimize it whenever possible. This is not really so far off from the orthodox Roman Catholic position. He does so many other good things that we can be a little flexible here and be gracious to him.”
This is very similar to the TEC playbook beginning back in the 1970s where they claimed to want to hear what everybody thought and said they took it seriously. They played on the good manners of orthodox believers that kept them docile and unwilling to act in a manner deemed to rigid or strident.
Very good political manuvering on the part of POTUS. We’ll see how it plays out. Watch the upcoming SCOTUS nominee very carefully to see what her record is on abortion rights.
You know to a certain point I can get along. I can get along with the goal of educating women to understand that being pregnant does not mean an end to their lifes’ dream. I can get along with the goal of making maternal and child health a priority in this Country so that fear of problem pregnancy does not fuel the abortion debate. I can get along with the increasing the self worth of women so that if a boy friend or husband pressures them to have an abortion they have the confidence to say no. I can get along with working to improve the lives of women so that pregnancy is always an occassion for joy. And I can understand how to some it may seem the only desparate choice they have because over and over they have heard society’s lies. And I grieve for those who face a pregnancy where there is little chance for a viable birth. Or where pregnancy is a result of rape or incest (extremely rare as it may be).
But no matter what we can get along with the bottom line is that this abortion debate is not about circumstances we all can work to improve or eradicate. It is about the immovable position some have in this country that abortion is the same as any other elective surgical procedure and involves no more moral or ethical quandry than choosing to have a nose job. That all argument aside extolling the virtue of reducing abortion no actual impediment shall be put in the path of a woman deciding to kill the child in her womb. According to abortion defenders the reason for this decision is not for public scrutiny and this is one instance where personal autonomy and desire trumps any societal concerns or common morality. Just try lighting up a cigarette in a non smoking area to find out just how the opposite sentiment works. Or heck ordering the super size meal if you do not wear the size 5 jeans.
The ultimate goal of the pro life and pro abortion camps is very different no matter how much fancy speeches by the President try to obscure this fact. Pro lifers want no more pre born children willfully killed by their own mothers. While the pro abortion folks simply want women to be allowed to do so. How can we get along about that?
But bottom line
In term of content – the “we” whose “common fates” are tied up, who might “join our hands in common effort”, who “treat one another as we wish to be treated” does not apparently in the President’s view include the most vulnerable amongst us, who can never speak in their own defence, the unborn. Do you see – if “getting along together” would include the unborn then I might truly respect the rhetoric. I’m all in favor of exhorations for compassion and empathy, I just wish the President would enlarge the circle of his vision to include all members of the human family. So you see, I actually think he’s not being empathetic or compassionate enough.
What’s so heart wrenching about excising a piece of tissue? It’s not like it’s a human or something, right? Make up your mind Mr. President.
Request a higher paygrade.
I don’t see many of the commentators actually referring to the text of the speech. As far as an argument for abortion (#16), I don’t know why he should have done that. It was enough for him not to argue for abortion. I’m glad he didn’t. It is enough to have different viewpoints.
Some people place the moral locus of decision in the hands of the woman, and not of the state, or government. We are free to say that abortion kills babies. Alas, this is a contested view.
I cynically wonder how much of Obama’s speech was written by the 20 something “wunderkid” who wrote most of his speeches during the campaign? Obama- can’t function too well without his best friend-the teleprompter
If you appeal for reasoned discussion about abortion it is self defeating not to reasonably discuss ones own views on abortion. Of course, it allows one to avoid the very reasoned disagreement that one claims one actually wants to promote.
Alas, this is a contested view.
I am old enough to remember the arguments over civil rights, when the propriety of integration was contested. Whether the Iraq War fits just war criteria is contested. Appropriate ways to address illegal immigration are contested. The appropriateness of same-sex marriage is contested. And so on. As an excuse for maintaining the social status quo, “contested” is pretty weak.
Barack Obama is the man who fought to make Illinois safe for partial birth abortion and would deny life-saving measures to children born *after abortion.
He considers pregnancy a “punishment”.
Fair-minded words? Reason? Does he even know basic biology?
Who is the extremist ideologue here?
#16: You are right. Obama needs the Catholics In Name Only aka a a la carte ‘ethnic Catholics’ (Christmas and Easter) to continue his program. He also needs to draw in more socially conservative Hispanics who voted down same sex marraige in CA. Among self-described ‘Catholics’ the abortion rate is no lower than the national average, and probably higher – though not as high as among African Americans.
Matt Kennedy, one thing that surely rings true is Obama’s statement about reducing positions to caricature.
Although unless we’re willing create economic incentives for women to have children, the moral outrage that people have seems hollow to me.
#24 – did you read the speech? Granted it is a lot more amusing and shocking to take out old quotes to prove one’s caricature of Obama, but what’s true is that if you want to reduce abortions without the criminalizing women, then there are different sorts of policy decisions you can make.
#20 Abortion killing babies is not a contested view. It is a scientific fact. What is contested is whether the mother and a doctor have the right to kill the baby.
Abortion also does not occur in a vacuum. People must pay for it, promote it and abortion centers must create customers. Whether it is funded by the govt. or not, it is a business and a medical procedure. Those who believe in abortions like Pres. Obama also promote abortion by funding it, relaxing laws around abortion (i.e. advocating for abortions for teens w/o parent notification–contra the notifications for any other medical procedure) and the opposition to abstinence support.
John Wilkins, why refer to the text of the speech? What did you find in it that convinces? Open hearts and open hands? Or appeal to the Golden Rule? If there is anything here but pious platitudes, please point it out.
A question and a comment about the speech:
” within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds.
For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It’s no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule — the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. The call to serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.”
What does it mean “to cling to our faith to persuade through reason”? That we have presuppositions?
My comment is that one needs only to google “Golden Rule” and find that religious tolerance.org comes up first, so the appeal to the Golden Rule is part of the agenda, as is the revisionist spin, i.e., that all the worlds religions have it in the same form. I was taught that only Jesus has it as a proactive teaching. To practice the other one can do it “from the easy chair,” but as Christ taught it, it cost something.
So, we have a revisionist President, we saw it coming, revisionists love him, others don’t. Anything new here?
Slightly off topic: I [url=http://www.episcopalchurch.org/81831_107742_ENG_HTM.htm ]see that EDS[/url] granted three honorary degrees to people known for the proclaiming the [strike]Gospel[/strike] gospel of homosexuality – Ian Douglas, [url=http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/10/23/deval-patrick-and-homosexual-marriage/ ]Deval Patrick[/url], and Margaret G. Payne (a Lutheran).
I don’t think the Golden Rule appears as such other than explicitly in Christianity and implicitly in Judaism. Certainly these two have the most emphasis on justice towards all. Muslims are commanded to give alms (and given very specific amounts, much smaller than the tithe), and alms are commended to Hindus, and Buddhists; but the fullness of “love your neighbor as yourself,” no.
Matt, you may be right that abortion is killing unborn babies, but the issue is about policy. The issue is not just “killing unborn babies” but who makes the decision: The state, or the woman. And I suspect that we would agree that there is a broad culture of death that is involved in the abortion debate. I tend to think that it is a consequence of different priorities that we’ve grown accustomed to, rather than as a central moral issue.
So yes, all you do is repeat a caricature.
Now: if you really wanted to see abortions reduced, perhaps you might examine what real economic policies look like that reduce abortions: like offering health care for all pregnant women, regardless of income, and then ensuring women are given two years of subsidized leave from their job to take care of the child. I’d make a bet we’d see abortion decline. Without the state involved. And looking at other countries – comprehensive sex education helps.
As I’ve said before, people are pro-life until they have to pay for it. Would you have your taxes raised for the sake of the babies? Not a hard question.
I would.
PowerLine has the best wrap-up analysis of Pres. Obama’s speech that I’ve read – http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023588.php. Unfortunately, I agree with it – that this speech happened is a severe loss for the Catholic Church.
John Wilkins, how likely do you think it would be that tax dollars targeted for programs to aid pregnant women would actually go to those women and not to administrating the program? I ask because though in principle I have no objection to your goal I am skeptical on just how well government can provide the needed services without creating another tar pit burearcracy.
I am also skeptical because of local experience. This county voted overwhelmingly in favor of a children’s services tax. The understanding that it would go for such programs as child and maternal health, prevention of child abuse, counseling for troubled families. Well guess what? Now the money is being used for such things as money to planned parenthood and to push for certain sex education curriculums in the schools.
So yes I do favor more help to pregnant women I just don’t think the government is the best steward for the resources to help those women. One program that I think does work is WIC and I do support it being expanded.
Also I doubt we will ever reach the goal of all women having a healthy pregnancy in this country as long as we treat unwed motherhood as just another lifestyle choice and not as the crisis that I believe it truly is. And addressing that is going to take a moral position that is not favored by secular society.
John Wilkins: “The issue is not just ‘killing unborn babies’ but who makes the decision: The state, or the woman.” No. When the state decides to kill someone, we call it the execution of someone judged guilty of a crime, or we call it a war. When an individual decides to kill someone, we call it murder.
Services for mothers and children are admirable, but they are a band-aid applied to the basic problem which is, as Paula Loughlin says, the decision of so many unmarried women to engage in sexual activity. John Wilkins is probably too young to remember the days before Roe v. Wade. I do remember. Men and women all knew that sex was likely to result in pregnancy, and that pregnancy would result in the birth of a child. The result was that far, far fewer young women agreed to have premarital or extramarital sex. Unlimited abortion enables sexual libertinism for both women and the men who think it’s great to get it without strings attached. Women and children face the price physically and emotionally.
John Wilkins, if a human fetus is a human being then isn’t it the first duty of a just government to protect the life of that human being from the intentional taking by another human being? I assume that you wouldn’t disagree with that basic principle of justice. so, am I correct in assuming that you don’t think that a human fetus is a human being?
re Wilkins: The United Kingdom, which has easy access to free or cheap contraception (including “emergency contraception”), free universal health care, and unlimited child support for unmarried mothers, is the abortion capital of Europe.
Almost every year since 1967, when abortion was legalized, has seen an increase. Rates rose from 11 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 1984 (136,388 abortions) to 17.8 per 1,000 in 2004 (185,400 abortions). In 2008, there were 205,600 abortions, and many of them for women who had had one or more previously. As there were 690,013 live births in 2007, it is safe to say more than a quarter of children conceived in the UK are not allowed to live, year in and year out.
Mr. Wilkins and co. always argue the same points. They make sense in theory. The actual evidence is all the other way. But pro-lifers are accused of being ideologues, and pro-choicers cast themselves as the voice of reason. This is one of the most successful, enduring, and profoundly wicked pieces of rhetorical misdirection in our time.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzRhZTgzNmRlZWE0MTA1YTM4NWMxN2UxMjA5YjBkZTE=
[blockquote]Now: if you really wanted to see abortions reduced, perhaps you might examine what real economic policies look like that reduce abortions: like offering health care for all pregnant women, regardless of income, and then ensuring women are given two years of subsidized leave from their job to take care of the child. I’d make a bet we’d see abortion decline. Without the state involved. And looking at other countries – comprehensive sex education helps.
As I’ve said before, people are pro-life until they have to pay for it. Would you have your taxes raised for the sake of the babies? Not a hard question. [/blockquote]
[b]Fork over the cash or the kid gets it!!![/b]
Without the state involved?? Exactly where are these two years of subsidy coming from, comrade, and whose “policies” are you talking about? Are you even mildly aware that “taxes” are things levied and collected by the State?
Since Europe has most, if not all, of these “family-friendly” policies in place, one would expect that the abortion rate would be lowest there, yet we find [url=http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html]exactly the opposite[/url]…it’s highest in Europe, which has a birth rate that is far below replacement. Europe is committing suicide, and you are urging we follow suit. Again your nostrums are predictably statist, John, and completely detached from reality. Or maybe the intent is something other than what you’ve stated.
With [unintentional] rich irony, John Wilkins writes this:
“Now: if you really wanted to see abortions reduced, perhaps you might examine what real economic policies look like that reduce abortions: like offering health care for all pregnant women, regardless of income, and then ensuring women are given two years of subsidized leave from their job to take care of the child. I’d make a bet we’d see abortion decline. Without the state involved.”
Heh.
He wants the State to offer “health care for all pregnant women, regardless of income, and then ensuring women are given two years of subsidized leave from their job to take care of the child” . . . all “without the state involved.”
Incredible — and typical — incoherence.
He then asks a question that is further revealing:
“Would you have your taxes raised for the sake of the babies? Not a hard question.”
Which being interpreted is “Would you have [the State’s power increased] for the [pretended] sake of the babies? Not a hard question.”
Yeh — it’s not hard at all. The answer is “no.” I would have the Constitution followed which would involve 1) abortion being illegal, 2) as little money given to the State by individuals as possible — and within the bounds of the Constitution and 3) the freedom of private charity.
The better — and thus unasked by JW — question is “Would you [give personal money to those who need it] for the sake of the babies? Not a hard question.”
And the answer to that question is “yes.”
But you see . . . . as with most of JW’s statements about life in America, it’s all about [i]increasing the power of the State[/i] rather than actually simply fulfilling the Constitutional rights to which all elected politicians have been sworn.
Yes, all we need is government-paid, universal health care. That will reduce abortions. I mean, look at those states that have universal health care…hardly any abortions at all there, right?
Abortion is, more often than not, slaughtering a child for the convenience of the mother. Yes, many young girls are coerced into abortion by parents, lovers, etc. But the mother signs the paperwork, so has the greater moral responsibility (regardless of age).
Sorry if that offends the sensibilities of the “pro-choice” crowd. I’m not interested in being politically correct, I’m interested in prophetically proclaiming the truth about the American holocaust.
-Jim+
The media has ignored the fact that over 4,000 students, plus faculty,clergy, alumni, and parents, took part in a peaceful protest at the same time Obama was speaking. Today’s talk shows are full of callers protesting the media’s NON-coverage of their event.
Jefferson, the institute says: “Both developed and developing countries can have low abortion rates. Most countries, however, have moderate to high abortion rates, reflecting lower prevalence and effectiveness of contraceptive use. Stringent legal restrictions do not guarantee a low abortion rate.”
Your use of the statistics is conveniently slippery. Why did you choose all of Europe rather than just northern or western Europe? Compare Britain, Holland and scandinavia, and they have a much lower rate of abortion. There are plenty of good non state reasons to explain why Eastern Europe has such a high abortion rate. I don’t call this a “fudge” but rather, a manipulation of the facts to support your thesis.
Either the big bad nasty state imprisons women for murder; or it requires people to pay for kids. The big bad nasty state requires, for example, men to pay child support. The big bad nasty state enforces civil rights.
Sarah, of course, insists on reinterpreting the question. Clearly, the state would be required to spend money to imprison doctors and women – who would pay for the police state that would round all of them up?
You are a better person than most people, Sarah – a counter example for all the Augustinians around. You might just pay the amount, through charity, that is require to care for others. Most people are sinners, however, and a little more greedy, and they rarely give enough. They easily miscalculate the costs of living in the kind of free society we are blessed to live in. Which, alas, includes paying for the government of the United States of America.
Were many doctors and women imprisoned for having or performing abortions before Roe V Wade? Was freedom for the unjustly incarcerated one of the arguments for more lax abortion laws?
JW: “Augustinians” seems to be a pejorative term in your usage. I am guessing because people are presupposing sin has something to do with this issue?
Also, if I may ask, who is your patron saint?
I think this was a particularly good speech, that included some surprisingly good advice to the pro-Life community, that has been entirely missed here and by almost every commentator I’ve read so far. The President’s call is for civility and persuasion. Banners and protests, and incendiary (even if you think it is accurate) language, and by assuming the worst in your opponents (such as that “pro-Choice” people enjoy “killing babies”) will get you nowhere. Reasoned debate and a willingness to work on common ground issues are what wins the day. Though the ground is shifting according to recent polls, most of the country still believes in “choice”. This will not be changed by fiat, or Supreme Court fights, or boycotting the President. It will be done by changing hearts and minds, just as Cardinal Bernardin said.
I disagree with a few things, for example that no woman makes the abortion decision lightly. On the contrary, many do. Abortion on demand as a casual means of contraception is well entrenched, and the President should see and admit that.
But I can’t help it, I like this man very much. I think he is wrong, dreadfully wrong about abortion. But I still think he’s a good man, who has come to a bad conclusion. What I do not believe is that he is an evil man who is somehow God’s judgment upon our nation. On the contrary, I think we are strangely fortunate to have him, and I pray ceaselessly that his own heart and mind will be changed on this most critical of matters.
[blockquote]Jefferson, the institute says: “Both developed and developing countries can have low abortion rates. Most countries, however, have moderate to high abortion rates, reflecting lower prevalence and effectiveness of contraceptive use. Stringent legal restrictions do not guarantee a low abortion rate.â€
Your use of the statistics is conveniently slippery. Why did you choose all of Europe rather than just northern or western Europe? Compare Britain, Holland and scandinavia, and they have a much lower rate of abortion. There are plenty of good non state reasons to explain why Eastern Europe has such a high abortion rate. I don’t call this a “fudge†but rather, a manipulation of the facts to support your thesis. [/blockquote]
Because, John, those Eastern European countries have those programs you advocate in place, too. Is there some reason they should be excluded because they don’t fit your blinkered narrative? Why don’t the programs work there?
The message being sent to Europeans is clearly not the one you put forth, John. The message is that children are a burden that the State will relieve you of so you can continue to live in perpetual adolesence. Hence Europe’s continuing self-abolition in the form of low birth rates, which abortion surely does not help.
[blockquote]Either the big bad nasty state imprisons women for murder; or it requires people to pay for kids. The big bad nasty state requires, for example, men to pay child support. The big bad nasty state enforces civil rights. [/blockquote]
Feel better now?
I’m all for the state enforcing non-custodial parents to pay child support, but I’m shocked that you do.
I had to laugh out loud at your assertion that the “big bad nasty state enforces civil rights.” What a howler. Read the Bill of Rights again, comrade, and maybe it will dawn upon you whom the Founders knew was the primary violator of civil rights.
Alta Californian – I understand what you’re saying and I agree with some of it. What I can’t get around, and maybe you can explain it to me, is when you say
how do you explain that he’s a “good man” and his voting four times as a state-senator against legislation that would provide medical help to babies born from failed abortions?
He actually advocated allowing live babies be left to die – that’s infanticide. Read the transcripts of the senate hearings on this and his explanations of his vote. How can you “like” someone (whom you don’t really know) when his actions (not his words) allow infanticide? I just don’t get it, I really don’t. I’m not saying he’s “evil” or “all bad” but I cannot understand how anyone can think and vote this way. How do you explain that? And please don’t leave it to “politics” – that’s even worse and amazingly cynical.
The idiocy of statist ideaology seldom suprises me anymore.
The State requires fathers to pay child support – and in some instances, the defintion of “father” can be emotional over genetic. Yet, fathers have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in whether an unborn child can be aborted or not in the eyes of the State because it does not affect their bodies. So the state can compel a man to pay child support because he is 50% responsible for the child, but he has no rights in determining if the child lives or dies through abortion.
A woman, on the other hand, is paid by the state and the father if she decides to keep the child. The state also helps abort the child if the woman desires. So if she keeps the child, the state forces payment. If she aborts the child, the state arranges services free of charge to eliminate the product of conception (read: murder the child).
Gosh, I wonder who the State sides with in all this…and where is the State’s obligation to protect the civil rights of the man equally to the woman?
Government is the problem here, not the solution. Thank you President Reagan.
-Jim+
Fr. Matt, perhaps that was hyperbole (though you cannot say that NO ONE has said that, I have heard it myself, though not here on T19). Nevertheless you yourself tend to use particularly heated language when discussing this matter. Call me a “concern troll” but I don’t find that to be particularly useful or effective, even if it is how you really feel, and I dare say even if it’s sometimes justified.
Branford, this was hashed and rehashed during the campaign. He has stated that he opposed those particular pieces of legislation because he and his pro-choice allies felt they were pushing the envelope on establishing anti-abortion precedents (and that this was their true intent), and that they were unnecessary because there were already laws on the books in Illinois that provided for such medical care. As far as I know he did not push to repeal the latter. I am willing to accept that explanation insofar as to resist the conclusion that he has some malice against infants. I still disagree with the action, and I don’t find his explanation on the differences between the state law he opposed and the federal law he supposedly supports at all convincing, but again I don’t thus ultimately conclude that he is an evil man. I have said this before, even though it is admittedly hard to defend, but some of the pro-choice concerns are genuine and legitimate. Unless we get at those issues and their roots instead of just shouting “murder”, I don’t think we’ll get anywhere.
#47 I think the claim is that he has spoken and acted in support of intrinsicaly evil actions. Insofar as his words attempt to overlay that with the charm and a rhetoric of “we’re all in this together” (apart from the unborn, apparently) I find myself not just unpersuaded but deeply saddened. The very worst speeches IMO are those which are rhetorically appealing but terribly wrong.
PS I’m sure the President has many characteristics that commend him – able, highly intelligent, very articulate, funny – but on this he is IMO gravely wrong and has been directly implicated in supporting that which is evil. No amount of self deprecating charm can justify, or ameliorate, the support for that which is evil.
Alta Californian – #52 – You write: “Branford, this was hashed and rehashed during the campaign. He has stated that he opposed those particular pieces of legislation because he and his pro-choice allies felt they were pushing the envelope on establishing anti-abortion precedents (and that this was their true intent), and that they were unnecessary because there were already laws on the books in Illinois that provided for such medical care. . .”
Actually, most major news outlets did NOT hash and rehash this, but nevertheless, when you say “[Obama] and his pro-choice allies” you neglect to mention the fact that Obama had very few pro-choice allies on this issue. Even NARAL did not oppose the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Check out Jill Stanek’s excellent research on Obama’s votes and his reasoning here (the links don’t transfer to this site, so you’ll have to go to Jill’s site to click the internal links, but everything is documented with original sources) – http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html
I don’t think we get to the “root” of the problems when politicians make false assertions.
I second Alta Californian.
I am also quite saddened to see the vitriol in so many of the comments above.
I understand how deeply distressing this topic is for so many of us. What I don’t understand is why people who claim to oppose abortion are so willing to obstruct efforts to reduce the number of abortions (see [url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/181786]here[/url] and [url=http://blogs.cuatower.com/2009/01/27/reducing-abortion-is-at-the-moment-the-moral-position-for-the-pro-life-community-says-cua-professor/]here[/url]), and so viciously denounce those who undertake such efforts. That strikes me as a marvelous example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. After all, if you truly want to achieve a certain goal, why would you refuse to take steps that will achieve part of that goal now/in the near future because they leave you with some distance yet to go? I didn’t notice much attention in the comments above to the bit, later in this speech, when President Obama said, “let us work together to [b]reduce the number of women seeking abortions,[/b] let’s [b]reduce unintended pregnancies.[/b] Let’s [b]make adoption more available.[/b] Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term.” [i][emphasis added][/i]
I get so incredibly frustrated with people who say they are pro-life and want to save babies, and then [i]actively fight against[/i] efforts to help [i]those same babies[/i], or their mothers. And don’t talk to me about ‘well, I don’t trust that that’s where my tax dollars really would go.’ Help, or don’t help – but if you don’t help, at least get out of the way and let others do it.
Someone above quoted the line in the President’s speech about the “soldier and the lawyer may both love this country … and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm,” and then asked which one has put his life on the line. To you, I would ask: are the only people entitled to reach such conclusions those who have served in the military [i]and[/i] literally put their lives on the line in the process? If so, I take it that you must have had real issues with the last administration, in which so many of the people responsible for making decisions about our national security had either never served in the military, or else barely did so and never in any way that risked life or limb. Military service creates neither perfection nor the ability to see every facet of a situation or problem with absolute clarity; it does give another form of experience to flawed and imperfect human beings. We have a better shot at protecting ourselves from harm when people with [i]many[/i] different perspectives and forms of experience can come to the table and work together.
Notice that the President very carefully does NOT say that he aims to reduce the number of abortions. Rather he wants to:
1. Reduce the number of women seeking abortion
2. Reduce unintended pregnancies (whatever that means)
3. Make adoption more available
4. Support those women who carry to term
5. Provide a conscience clause
6. Ground policies in respect for “clear ethics” and the equality of women
FWIW the administration’s stated goals in this area are to “support maternal and child health, reduce unintended and teenage pregnancies, strengthen adoption and reduce the need for abortion”. In pursuit of this, White House aides held on April 3 a conference call with abortion advocates and faith based groups. The only speakers during the Conference Call were Joshua DuBois, director of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships; Melody Barnes (former director of Planned Parenthood and former board member of Emily’s List, a group that promotes pro-abortion candidates) and Tina Tchen, (former vice president of the National Organization for Women). Taken from http://www.priestsforlife.org/clippings/2009/09-05-15-obama-reduction-plan.htm
A well formed conscience surely should experience at some point anger and disgust when reflecting on actions that are intrinsically evil. Of course, reasonable persuasion is demanded in a pluralist society – the cas emust be made as compeelingly and compassionately as possible. But conveying the moral gravity of abortion means, in some ways and at some points, communicating the emotional responses that are internal to the judgment that it is gravely evil.
[url=http://www.priestsforlife.org/clippings/2009/09-05-15-obama-reduction-plan.htm]Another take [/url] on how the Obama administration is actually involving the Christian viewpoint.
Think: Window Dressing.
Driver8, now that is the best comment I’ve seen yet. How about this, if Fr. Matt will start making the case more compellingly and compassionately, I’ll start being angrier and more disgusted with the President.
RE: “Either the big bad nasty state imprisons women for murder . . . ”
Sounds good — the State’s constitutional powers are to protect its citizens from murder, not to take my money and forcibly redistribute it inefficiently and incompetently to others it wishes to.
The State, simply and clearly, was given [i]precisely[/i] its duties and none other. They’re listed in a little document called the Constitution, which socialist deconstructionists interpret just as they interpret Holy Scripture — as “words written in water.”
RE: “Clearly, the state would be required to spend money to imprison doctors and women – who would pay for the police state that would round all of them up?”
The relieved citizens who are thrilled that at last the State is doing what it is required to do. The same relieved citizens that are thrilled when the police round up other standard murderers and those who commit battery and assault.
RE: “You are a better person than most people, Sarah . . . ”
Not really — I’m pretty standard, for a conservative, probably below average — and conservatives of course are light years ahead of libs in charity.
RE: “Most people are sinners, however, and a little more greedy, and they rarely give enough.”
All people are sinners — for example, those people who desire to use the power of the State to steal other individuals’ money in order to give it to those whom they wish to give it to.
Further evidence of the Fall of man — and greedy too.
But then . . . we don’t agree about the most basic definitions of words anyway, since we don’t share the same faith. So it’s understandable that John Wilkins would define “greedy” in a completely opposite way. It’s just another word of many: Jesus, sin, resurrection, deity, incarnation, atonement, and on and on.
RE: “The President’s call is for civility and persuasion. Banners and protests, and incendiary (even if you think it is accurate) language, and by assuming the worst in your opponents (such as that “pro-Choice†people enjoy “killing babies”) will get you nowhere.”
Au contraire. Steadily and surely Americans are recognizing the grotesqueness of President Obama’s position as well as other radical progressives’ positions, as several surveys and the most recent Gallup poll are revealing.
So I think pro-lifers have done all the “persuading” they need to, and certainly need to keep on pointing out as well that abortion is murder. The mix seems just about right.
I suspect Matt — experienced in blogdom for the past five years — understands that it’s the foundational worldview of activist abortion-lovers that would have to change before they changed their minds about the actual sin of abortion.
In principle, I don’t think that all communication should be offered for the purpose of “persuasion” — sometimes communication is merely for assertion and expression of opinion, which Matt has done nicely.
I myself made a point of deciding some years ago that I would not communicate via blogdom in order to persuade committed progressives. Moderates, maybe. But not the idealistic progressives, since we simply don’t share enough of the same foundation to persuade each other.
My supervisor today said that he and his wife watched the speech. He describes himself as “a fanatic Catholic”, “with the Church on everything”, BUT… President Obama’s call for civility and unity made a lot of sense. I know him to be a devout daily-Mass-attender.
I didn’t respond, having a personal rule against politics in the workplace (public employment, actually). But it left me thinking.
actively fight against efforts to help those same babies, or their mothers.
References, please? Although if you are saying that your way is the only way, that resistance to your means is resistance to the ends, then there are no grounds for discussion. You obviously bear no good will on your part towards those on the other side of the debate.
As a Catholic, I belong to the largest pro-life organization in the world. We have two thousand years of pre-natal-to-grave service provision: hospitals, schools, Catholic Charities, Catholic Relief Services, family services, and so on. It’s a lie – a damnable lie – to posit a dichotomy between being anti-abortion and pro-social service.
#16, you appear to be exactly right about the meaning and the intent of this speech by Obama: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzNhZDI1MDAyMjcwNTFhMDM3NDZkOGQ5ZWZhOGUzNWI=
Not being confident of my own intuition that O. was attempting an end-run around religious authority by giving this speech and accepting the degree, I had to read it clearly explained by a Roman Catholic insider. Daniel’s comment was entirely accurate.
The winning bloc of Catholics that voted for the most pro-abortion US President ever have thus had their (poorly formed) consciences salved and gone away assured they are good Americans (nothing at all like being good Germans in the Nazi 1930s, I’m sure…..). It’s lost on them that Obama is the counterpart to Stephen Douglas, not Lincoln in the pro-life debate, which surely is the major civil rights issue of this age. Ah, but it’s above his pay-grade.
Not only is the USA being deceived by this action on Notre Dame’s part, it is sending the wrong message to the rest of a watching world as this Administration restores and promotes funding for abortions – in a focused anti-Catholic action – in an international context.
(As an aside, one can note that the conflict between Trinitarians and Unitarians mentioned in the early sentences of the article linked above is the very same one that is now 200 years later tearing apart the Episcopal Church.)
One doesn’t have to be terribly cynical to see such as one of the points of the speech. Namely to persuade Catholics that they can in good conscience unite around him because, though they differ on the ultimate rightness or wrongness of abortion, the President is committed to reducing abortions. However, as I noted above in post #56, the President nowhere committed himself to reducing abortions nor did he even declare that he wished to do so. However one needs to read or listen carefully to notice this – the positive rhetoric of common action rathers covers it over. Neither AFAIK is it the stated policy of his administration to reduce the number of abortions. There is some good evidence on what kinds of actions reduce the number of abortions. If the President is committed to such we should see him begin to encourage and implement such policies.
You see I think the President is not, in principle, ethically very interested in abortion at all. To a different audience almost all of his aims could fairly be described as “giving women choice”. The fate of the unborn is, I think, simply not an ethical question for him.
Jefferson, I think its interesting that you wouldn’t identify a difference between health care systems that arose out of totalitarian governments and those that arose out of democracies. To assume there aren’t differences between eastern and western europe is kind of like using America, while not clarifying that Mexico is a different country than the US. Whatever. There are good reasons to distinguish between different areas on Europe. Perhaps you should study them a bit more – because the places are not identical.
You state: “The message is that children are a burden that the State will relieve you of so you can continue to live in perpetual adolesence.” Actually, economically, the one clear indicator of poverty in the US is children. In a market economy, children are still pretty heavy expenses. It is the tipping point for lots of families. That is one reason women chose to terminate their pregnancies. The state actually reduces the the burden upon families those countries.
Heh – Jefferson – so – you are surely right that the founders opposed… monarchies. But I admit some amusement that you would compare our democracy to 18th century Europe. Perhaps you don’t think our founders didn’t do such a very good job with our own democracy. As far as civil rights go, we didn’t do a very good job of that for most of our history. Perhaps it wasn’t the state that ensures local communities don’t bring back Jim Crow. As it was, that’s why there are amendments. Whereas you are busy fearing Hobbes or Rousseau, I’m thinking Dewey or Bentley.
Sarah, your relativism always amuses me.
I’m glad you came clean about being willing to throw women in jail for abortion. As usual you show your remarkable consistency and clarity. Now if a woman terminated a pregnancy after having one, two or three kids, would the state have to pay for the orphanage? What if the father were collaborating? He would be an accomplice, as well. And if she killed one fetus, how could we possibly ensure she isn’t waiting to kill her other children?
I’d like to start by going slightly off topic and saying that what I [i]meant[/i] to type, above, was “What I don’t understand is why SOME people who claim to oppose abortion are so willing to obstruct efforts to reduce the number of abortions …†I’m not sure where that “some†went…
[b]#56, driver8:[/b] You said, [i]“Notice that the President very carefully does NOT say that he aims to reduce the number of abortions. Rather he wants to: 1. Reduce the number of women seeking abortion; 2. Reduce unintended pregnancies (whatever that means) … [/i]
Re: #1: If fewer women seek abortions, there will be fewer abortions. So if he says he wants to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, then [i]he’s saying he wants to reduce the [u]number[/u] of abortions.[/i]
Re: #2: Reducing unintended pregnancies means reducing the number of unintended (or unwanted) pregnancies. Say, by teaching and promoting the use of contraception.
[b]#63, Words Matter:[/b] You asked for references for my statement about “people who claim to be pro-life but then [i]actively fight against[/i] efforts to help [i]those same babies,[/i] or their mothers.”
Please see the following comments, above (this is just off the top of my head; there may be others):
#41: “Would you have your taxes raised for the sake of the babies? Not a hard question.†… Yeh—it’s not hard at all. The answer is “no.â€
#35 expressed skepticism that tax dollars would actually go to the programs intended. She went on to complain that a portion of such money is now going to Planned Parenthood for “certain sex education curriculums in the schools.†(Ah, yes, heaven forbid that we do something to prevent teen pregnancy; much better to let them get pregnant left and right – [url=http://www.slate.com/id/2199132/pagenum/all/#p2]that always ends so well[/url].)
But when I wrote my initial comment about people fighting against programs that help children, I was actually thinking of conversations I have had with many people, over a number of years – which means I can’t really give you references, since I’m not going to release their names and contact information on this blog… But here’s one example: I have a dear friend who opposes abortion in all cases; he is an intelligent and educated man who has many interests, but his opposition to abortion is probably the thing about which he feels most passionate. However, he combines this with a complete, total, and unyielding opposition to just about any and every social program you can name. He takes every opportunity he can find to argue, lobby, write letters to the editor or his representatives, show up at a protest or march, etc. I have heard him argue against any gov’t funding to help provide housing to impoverished parents or mentoring to underprivileged kids, Head Start and tutoring and programs to assist failing or troubled schools, and so on and so forth. He also refuses to give money to charitable groups which work toward similar ends, on the theory that people should pick themselves up and take care of themselves and their own families. (Mind you, he also argues that all gov’t social programs, and gov’t funding for social programs, should end, and those duties should be taken over by private and/or religious charities – the same charities to which he refuses to donate. Yes, I see that his argument is internally inconsistent, but he just can’t seem to.)
As for your statement that I am really saying that resistance to my means is resistance to the ends: I don’t think so. I firmly believe that people can oppose any program they like, for any reason they like. However, I also believe that, if you want to see a bunch of children born – children who, by definition, are not wanted by their own parents, and would be disproportionately situated in the lower economic strata – then it is perfectly reasonable to expect you to do something to help take care of those children. Personally, I would be happy to donate money to charitable programs, but (like so many others these days) I’m stretching dimes in the hopes of turning them into dollars; most of what I can give goes to my church (which does support various ministries, even if the proportion of that support attributable to me is much smaller than I would like). Instead, I volunteer my time to work with kids in foster care, and I represent them in family court. I do this because I am not willing to oppose abortion and then turn my back on those children and say, in effect, ‘gee, sucks to be you!’
You also said: [i]You obviously bear no good will on your part towards those on the other side of the debate.[/i]
Um, other side of which debate? What I was saying was that my patience is sorely tried by those people whose concern for children seems to end at birth – they oppose abortion, they want those children born, but then their interest swiftly fades and the kids and mothers are on their own. I don’t understand wanting to see children born, but then resolutely looking away from them thereafter. I dispute your claim that I bear no good will to these people – I do my best to bear good will toward all men, though I freely admit that I fall short of that goal – but I have little sympathy for them or their position on this score. It strikes me as hypocritical and unfeeling – and particularly galling in those who claim to base their opposition to abortion on their Christian beliefs. I have always been taught that [url=http://www.cfdiocese.org/article/2009/01/28/bishop-salmon-preaches-central-floridas-40th-diocesan-convention]the Gospel sees us all as profoundly connected to each other (esp. @ 9:17-11:07)[/url] – what I do affects you, and what you do affects me, so while we all bear responsibility for ourselves, we also all bear some responsibility for everyone else. I think every abortion is a tragedy; I think every child who lives in misery is also a tragedy, and I think it is incumbent upon all of us to do what we can to help.
1. You might infer that he wants to reduce the number of abortions (a simply quantifiable datum) but he never says it. It is not a stated aim let alone a policy. I do not make the inference and prefer to stick to what he actually says – because it coheres with the public policy of his administration (see post #56 where the policy is described as reducing the need for abortion). Reducing the number of women seeking or needing abortions is indeed an aim but is much harder to quantify. It lacks definition – would the aim be acomplished if it reduced the number of women entering abortion clinics, or decreased the number of women contacting abortion clinics, or increased the number of women entering counselling before abortion etc. – you tell me. What it is not is a commitment to reduce the number of abortions.
2. What counts as an unwanted or unintended pregnancy and how on earth would you measure that so as to set a policy goal. It is again vague, hard to quantify, lacking clarity as to its object and with no necessary connection to abortion. Is this simply a way of stating a commitment to reducing teen pregnancy (planned or unplanned) or to increase the ease of availability of contraception or what?
Of course he could easily and clearly have stated that he aimed to decrease the number of abortions. He did not do so.
Well, let’s stipulate that Eastern Europe is not Western Europe.
Your second paragraph is a non-sequitur. If state support makes it easier to have babies, why are so few European women having them? Well, because if living life with no burdens and at the expense of everyone else is the objective, why have kids to begin with? Indeed, let’s shuffle off all the responsibilities of adulthood to the State and sip espresso at the cafe.
I’d like to take your “monarchy” comment seriously, but I don’t want to insult your intelligence.
To add another smallish criticism of the President’s ideas on reducing the number of women who want to abort, he mentions making adoption more available. An admirable idea, but what does he mean? Does he mean active efforts to persuade women to carry to term and place the baby with an adoption agency? Believe me, there are hundreds of qualified couples hoping to adopt every child placed with the agencies. But mothers don’t do this in large numbers. They either abort their babies or keep them to raise alone. The idea that adoption is not an available option is a myth.
TACit’s link in #64, by the way, is to a good article by George Weigel on Catholic social teaching in recent decades and Obama’s speech.
#69 To whom are you replying?
I may be forgiven I hope for being a bit leery about calls for civility. It all sounds very promising and on the face of it how could any reasonable person object? Until you take a look at past history and translate civility into lib speech. Which is to silence the opposition to our agenda by suggesting any persons who hold a contrary view are radicals unwilling to listen to reason. Because trust me on this. They do not want the world to hear the pro life view. They do not want there to ever be a serious legislative challenge to current abortion laws. They do not want to be told that abortion is a moral problem and not just a public health issue.
You see one of the best ways to reduce abortion is to once again promote as superior the view that children should be born of married couples who have made a life long commitment to one another. That sex should be preserved for the married state. And if sometimes that ideal is not met and a single woman becomes pregnant it is probably in the child’s best interest to be adopted into a home with a mother and father.
It means we stop tolerating the view that a woman is owed a child no matter her circumstance. We make sure the world knows that we are talking about personhood even from the earliest moments in the womb. And the dignity of the person is to be respected and preserved at all stages of life.
I have no doubt that the way pro abortion advocates plan on reducing abortion is by throwing lots and lots of birth control at more and more people at earlier and earlier ages. Maybe they can give out birth control when 7th graders go in for their Hepatitis B shots. And since the mantra of sex is ok as long as you don’t get pregnant or get a STD will be drummed into their heads. Young people will have a very difficult time putting pregnancy into a moral framework. I mean who the heck cares if you get treatment for an STD? (in fact you dang well better). So why is pregnancy different? Both are to be dreaded and proof of not being careful enough. What the heck does a child have to do with any of that?
I would rather be strident, loud and uncouth and even step on a few toes if being civil means silencing the voice for pre born children. PS. Let me guess evangelization is also lacking in civility.
[b]#70, Katherine:[/b] Yes, the idea that adoption is not available is a myth – but the point is that people believe the myth, and unless we make some effort to show people that it is, in fact, a myth, they will continue to believe it and act as if it is true. However, as someone who works with foster kids, I can tell you from personal experience that there are far too few people who are willing to adopt a child who is more than a few months old. I could sit here for hours and tell you stories that would absolutely break your heart; they certainly break mine.
[b]#68. driver8:[/b] Oh, for the love of Pete…
In my opinion, the concept of reducing the number of abortions is actually quite clear – if fewer women seek to get an abortion, then fewer of them will be performed; if the number of abortions performed goes down, then the number of abortions has been reduced. Period. There may be debate as to the real cause of the reduction, but there has been one, nonetheless. And what is it you feel you must hear before you can give him even the tiniest bit of credit on this – a commitment to reduce the number of abortions from X to Y? Since when must every single statement the President makes be a firm, quantifiable, specific, and absolute statement of policy? (And if you start to say that yes, it should be, I’ll just plan to come back to you after the next Republican is inaugurated and make sure you still feel that way.)
As for unwanted pregnancies: do you propose that we just ignore them? Do nothing and hope they go away? How about, instead, we take a single step? Not whine about it being imperfectly precise, not complain that it’s not easily verified, but instead put that time and energy toward [i]actually accomplishing something[/i] – something small, perhaps, but real. Sure seems like a better idea to me.
[i]#69 To whom are you replying? [/i]
John Wilkins in #66…I didn’t anticipate such a lively board at this hour.
[b]#75, Jeffersonian:[/b] Neither did I – which is why I’m having such a hard time turning off the darned computer! Man, am I going to be sorry when my alarm goes off tomorrow morning…
[blockquote]In my opinion, the concept of reducing the number of abortions is actually quite clear – if fewer women seek to get an abortion, then fewer of them will be performed; if the number of abortions performed goes down, then the number of abortions has been reduced. Period. [/blockquote]
No, not really. Just because someone is seeking something does not mean she will find it or be able to pay for it once it is found. Obama is making sure that both the availability of abortion and the funding of same are kept at their absolute maximum to assure that all seekers turn into patients. This is where the slippery lawyerspeak lulls people to sleep, and where this Juan Peron-wannabe is most egregious.
The Catholics here should really read [url=http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzNhZDI1MDAyMjcwNTFhMDM3NDZkOGQ5ZWZhOGUzNWI=]Weigel’s article.[/url] He describes, from a Catholic’s point of view, how this speech was essentially Obama’s intervention in Catholic disputes for his own political advantage. And from a secular point of view, he says:[blockquote]with the life issues, we’re living through the moral equivalent of the Lincoln/Douglas debates, with Barack Obama unhappily choosing to play the role of Stephen A. Douglas.[/blockquote]
OK, then, thanks for the help. I can turn it off now. The absolute and committed pessimsim, the complete refusal to credit someone who disagrees with you with even the slightest scintilla of benefit of the doubt, has done me in for the day. I pray for all of us, that we can try to see the best in each other, and that your strong affection for pessimism doesn’t become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I hope that those of you who insist on casting everything President Obama says in the worst possible light won’t be so obstructionist that you, as I said before, allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. Good night.
Yes I wonder why I am not more trusting of a President who has made his allegience to those promoting reproductive rights so clear? I have no doubt there is good in the man. But that does not mean never casting a critical eye upon what he says. Especially when the man’s history begs caution in believing he truly is for taking legal steps to reduce abortion. I would be a bit more optimistic if it were not for that whole infanticide thing.
#74 OK – one last go (but first read this http://www.priestsforlife.org/clippings/2009/09-05-15-obama-reduction-plan.htm). Those leading this policy in the White House are former leaders of organizations strongly supportive of abortion. The President himself has an almost unparalleled record of supporting abortion.
So the fact that he doesn’t say that he aims to reduce the numbers of abortions is because it is not his policy aim. Reducing the need for abortion sounds positive, it sounds like a step in the right direction. That’s surely because it’s intended to. He’s hardly going to say – I don’t have any very strong views about how many abortions there are because it’s nothing to do with me (because I think it is rightfully decided by women). He can say rather ill defined but positive sounding things about his views on women seeking or needing abortion. Things in which it is hard to define success or failure, things with no clear policy implications, but things that sound rather pleasing to those who oppose abortion. He doesn’t want women to need an abortion. He wants them to be able to choose to have an abortion. That is hardly a commitment to reduce the numbers of abortions.
Let me say I hope I am wrong and that you are right. I hope he does announce that all along he has intended to reduce the numbers of abortions. I hope he sets his administration a clear target and sets in place policies to further this aim specific aim. Let’s hope.
#79 You misread me at least – it’s not pessimism. It’s critique.
(FWIW I’ve said at least twice on this thread how gifted in so many ways the President is. I am quite prepared to praise him and I like the public persona that he projects. But he is gravely in error on this matter and it is a matter of the utmost import IMO).
#74 One truly final comment – my wife and I had three unplanned children. They are now all in their mid teens. Would such pregnancies count as the sort of thing that our President is hoping to prevent? If not – tell me exactly what would. How many such pregnancies there are now and what kind of reduction will count as success.
It is more honest to speak of unwanted children rather than unwanted pregnancies. The President wants to reduce the numbers of unwanted unborn children. I want to, too. I want every unborn child to be wanted. Don’t you?
What is Obama’s plan for reducing unplanned pregnancies? Won’t it most likely be increasing the amount tax payers give to Planned Parenthood?
Yes, I see that his argument is internally inconsistent, but he just can’t seem to.)
I also disagree with his personal philosophy. On the one and, “helping” can foster dependence and sloth; on the other hand, refusing to help other can be simple avarice.
…I am really saying that resistance to my means is resistance to the ends: I don’t think so.
My comment was conditional… If you were saying that… sorry that wasn’t clear. In fact, I have spent a large part of my adult life working in government social programs, as well as supporting private efforts of various kinds (mainly Church). I am fairly aware of both the uses and the weaknesses of each.
I don’t understand wanting to see children born, but then resolutely looking away from them thereafter.Â
Well, again, I refer you to the example of the Catholic Church, with our network of social, educational, and health services, operating at worldwide, national, diocesan, and, usually, parish levels, both formally and informally. For example, my inner city parish is in the hospital district, and we help a lot of people (mostly non-parishioners) with medical co-pays. We don’t hand out food anymore, since that truly does foster dependence, but partner with Union Gospel Mission for comprehensive homeless services.
fishsticks, it is a lie to equate opposition to abortion with opposition to social service provision. Of course, some people oppose both. Don’t generalize from the single case to all of us.
Time doesn’t permit me to develop this, but the dilemma is false because the phrase “wanting to see children born” should read “wanting to see unborn children protected”; also, situating birth in the context of responsible sexuality helps the discussion.
Katherine: The Catholics here should really read Weigel’s article.
Thanks for the reference. Time doesn’t permit me to read it right now, but Catholics and non-Catholics can readily profit from most of Weigel’s writing.
Back to fishsticks:
The absolute and committed pessimsim, the complete refusal to credit someone who disagrees with you with even the slightest scintilla of benefit of the doubt…
You are reading selectively, but on the issue of abortion and Pres. Obama, there is little warrant for optimism, here is little room for benefit of the doubt: his record and his stated philosophy are clear. He does seem to be making room for a conscience clause, and he has deferred the Freedom of Choice Act, so perhaps there is hope. We’ll see.
RE: “Sarah, your relativism always amuses me.”
Yawn — yeh, I can tell.
RE: “I’m glad you came clean about being willing to throw women in jail for abortion. As usual you show your remarkable consistency and clarity.”
As usual — incoherent. That’s what deconstructionism does — the person can’t even keep track of his own sophisms. One can’t be consistent and a relativist at the same time. Of course, I’m for murderers being thrown in jail if properly convicted.
RE: “Now if a woman terminated a pregnancy after having one, two or three kids, would the state have to pay for the orphanage?”
I would guess not — the State doesn’t do “orphanages” any more.
RE: “What if the father were collaborating? He would be an accomplice, as well.”
Absolutely — accomplices to murder should certainly be tried under the rule of law.
RE: “And if she killed one fetus, how could we possibly ensure she isn’t waiting to kill her other children?”
Thankfully we wouldn’t have to worry about that — she’d be in jail remember?
I loved that “relativism” bit, too. It reminded me of the wailing and gnashing of teeth how Justices Scalia, Thomas, et alia were “judicial activists” for having the temerity to hand down a ruling that was consistent with the actual text of the Second Amendment. Corruption of the language is Job One for the Left.
#84 I think this is a fairly good summary of [url=http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2009/05/obamas-speech.html]the President’s thinking.[/url]
If you are, as I am, committed to the view that abortion ends entirely innocent human lives ask yourself whether this sounds like the President “making common ground”. On what is he actually willing to compromise?
Read [url=http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2009/05/response-to-gibson.html]this[/url]
Hey, y’all, we all know this is a moot discussion. Just like in the TEC Wars, one side says “dialogue” while acting to create facts on the ground. Read this:
Sorry, the link to above is here – http://www.lifenews.com/nat5031.html
I’m not going to respond to anything – I’ve had enough. I just wanted to post this [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19354437]link[/url], which I found particularly interesting, in light of the above comments.
[blockquote] The Vatican said Monday that President Barack Obama was clearly looking for some common ground with his speech at the University of Notre Dame about abortion. …
Obama’s stance on the issue is that he supports abortion rights but says the procedure should be rare. …
The article … quoted Obama as inviting all Americans to work together to reduce the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies, and concluded he was searching for common ground on the “delicate question of abortion.” …
In addition, L’Osservatore Romano gave Obama a positive review after his first 100 days in office, saying in a front-page editorial that even on ethical questions Obama hadn’t confirmed the “radical” new direction he had discussed during the campaign. [/blockquote]
Just a reminder that this is a man for whom the idea of an unwanted pregnancy is a punishment on par with an STD:
[blockquote]“This is an example where good people can disagree. The question then is, are there areas that we can agree to that everybody can get behind? We can all agree that we want to reduce teen pregnancies. We can all agree that we want to make sure that adoption is a viable option.â€
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, [b]but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16,[/b] so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.â€[i](emphasis added)[/i][/blockquote]
#92 I think you’re right – despite the extraordinary display of unity amongst the US Catholic bishops – there is a division within Catholicism both about how to respond to the President and what the President’s intentions are. However if you find yourself persuaded by the L’Osservatore Romano then, since it concerns the same issue, you could also quote the forthright critique of the President’s stem cell policy in the very same issue.
Two days before the Notre Dame speech, one of the President’s aides leading a meeting with about twenty others with various views of abortion.
[url=http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31970]Here[/url]
is a report. I note this exchange, which IMO supports my interpretation of the President’s words. It is not the Administration’s policy to reduce the number of abortions: