Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Talking About Talking About Abortion
What did you think of President Obama's commencement speech Sunday at Notre Dame? How will the Notre Dame controversy change the abortion debate in America?
President Obama delivered his commencement address at the University of Notre Dame on Sunday, and he appeared to dive right into the very issue that made his visit to the Catholic university so controversial -- abortion.
The President's appearance at Notre Dame came even as seventy Catholic bishops denounced the university's invitation. Protests and debates roiled the world of American Catholicism and a major media event was assured.
The President began his address with a call for common ground, noting that the generation represented by the young Notre Dame graduates would face daunting challenges. "Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone," said Mr. Obama. "Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and greater understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history."
Yet, even as he called for common ground, he also warned: "We're not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable sometimes." Everyone knew that the President was referring to abortion. Once again, he called for 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.'"
In virtually every way imaginable, the Notre Dame speech represents the quintessential Obama. By now, Americans should understand that this President is going to take positions and shape policies that are at odds with the sanctity of human life. He has already done this with respect to federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research and, as a candidate he pledged to do far more -- even to sign the Freedom of Choice Act if passed by Congress.
At the same time, the President wants to claim common ground and respect for those who differ with him on these issues. He calls for others to do the same:
I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
Mr. Obama went on to call for "Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words." In the end, the President's comments were entirely about how Americans should discuss or debate abortion. There was no serious consideration of abortion itself. President Obama merely talked about talking about abortion.
This was a moral evasion and an insult to the importance of the issue. If the President had actually addressed the issue of abortion -- if he had actually even offered a defense or rationale for his own position -- he would have dignified the issue. Instead, Mr. Obama issued what amounted to a call for civility.
When the President called for Americans to agree that, while differing on abortion, "we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually," he failed to make clear why this is so. If the unborn baby is not a person who possesses an intrinsic right to life, why is the decision to abort so "heart-wrenching?" If the fetus is just a collection of cells, why the angst? Furthermore, does the fact that a decision is "heart-wrenching" make it right or rational?
When the President acknowledged that, in the end, the two positions on abortion are irreconcilable, he was on more solid ground. Both sides frame the issue as a question of rights -- specifically a woman's "right" to control her reproductive destiny by any means, including abortion vs. the unborn child's right to live. The weakness of the pro-abortion (or "pro-choice") position becomes evident at this point. The claimed right of control over reproduction is not commensurate with another person's right to live, and not to be killed in the womb.
If President Obama had actually spoken of abortion itself, rather than addressing abortion only as an issue of controversy, he would have found himself defending the indefensible, which explains why he avoids this discussion at all costs. Yet, now that he is President, he cannot get by with claiming that this question is "above my pay grade."
The President also called for a certain humility on contested issues. "And this doubt should not push us away our faith," argued the President. "But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness." In itself, this is a good and responsible warning. But, as President Abraham Lincoln made clear in his second inaugural address, avoiding arrogance and self-righteousness does not mean failing to take a clear and costly stand.
This President is entirely predictable on the issue of abortion and related issues of human life, such as embryonic stem cell research. He is framing policies that are completely consistent with what he said and promised during his campaign. It is embarrassing to see some evangelicals who claim to be pro-life running public relations for the Obama Administration's policies and positions. It is not uncivil to protest the President's positions as subversive of human dignity and the sanctity of human life.
At the University of Notre Dame President Barack Obama talked about talking about abortion. One day, he will have to talk about abortion itself. He will put that day off as long as possible.
By
R. Albert Mohler Jr.
|
May 19, 2009; 7:44 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Obama's Witness at Notre Dame |
Next: Obama Acknowledges Women as Moral Agents
Posted by: marymack77 | May 26, 2009 8:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I broadly agree with Dr. Mohler but want to add the following: It is no surprize that society is allowing the murder of babies. With the moral compass not Scripture ( and by extention-the Church) anymore (talking about the UK) the only moral compass society can follow, is their own conscience....and that will always move towards sinful behaviour! While I agree that we have to stand against the murder of babies, the real change can only come with the preaching of the Truth!
Posted by: ryk010 | May 25, 2009 5:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Bear in mind that Obama is both a politician, and a "person of faith"; both of these cultures have a strong aversion to facing and understanding reality.
Posted by: PSolus | May 20, 2009 12:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ABOVE MY PAYGRADE - Facebook Group:
Posted by: asharpfamily | May 20, 2009 1:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dr. Mohler -
Again you are right on target with your comments regarding the right to choose vs the right to life.
As Christians there is no common ground and may there never be. I have been upset over the Christian community during this election, but now I'm not upset over the people - I'm upset with those in the pulpits teaching the people.
I would just like to say to your readers, if you are not in a Church teaching from the Bible and learning what God has to say about things - get out of that church - no matter what kind it is.
Posted by: GRACEJ | May 19, 2009 3:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mohler,
While I've routinely disagreed with you about everything you've discussed in this forum, I was pleasantly surprised by the opening paragraphs of this essay. They held the promise of reaching out to the "enemy" in discovering and embracing common ground.
Silly me.
Your denigrating assessment of President Obama's "call for civility" made clear that you were treading old ground, hashing old grievances, and presenting yourself as yet another fundamentalist obstacle to important dialogue.
Instead of welcoming dialogue about a topic that makes Americans on both sides of the issue passionate and angry, you reiterate the old patter about rights vs. "rights" -- that is, you accord actual rights to a multi-celled organism that is part of a woman's body but not a viable entity on its own (much as a tumor might be), but imply that said woman is trying to claim fraudulent "rights" in deciding what is best for her body and that which feeds off of it.
Clearly, you are invested in preventing any kind of give and take and determined to keep fanning flames.
For instance, you willfully misquote the president, who did not say that the issue of abortion was above his pay grade; he said that deciding when life begins is above his pay grade. He was acknowledging that it is a call only God can make. (Implicit here is that it's a call that's also above YOUR pay grade -- and that of every other holy person who purports to speak for God.)
Finally, when you accuse him of being "entirely predictable on the issue of abortion and related issues of human life, such as embryonic stem cell research," you neglect to mention other "related issues of human life," such as: giving medical assistance to HIV/AIDS patients in Africa; supplying condoms for HIV prevention in underdeveloped (but overpopulated) countries around the world; helping to feed those who are slowly starving to death; eradicating torture as an instrument of our government; developing new treatments for diseases which can be researched using embryos slated for the wastebin; thinking and hesitating before putting our military in harm's way; figuring out how to take care of orphans and foster kids already born and suffering under years of abuse and absence of connection; and the list goes on...
Your positions -- and those of your fellow fundamentalists -- on these issues are truly "subversive of human dignity and the sanctity of human life." How long are you going to put off talking about these subjects?
As long as possible?
Posted by: kjohnson3 | May 19, 2009 3:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
believe there are some issues which you cannot achieve middle ground on because one is right the other is wrong You may understand the sincerity and zeal of those who stand in opposition to what you know to be right but you cannot and should not concede your ground Slavery was one of those issues I am sure there were some abolitionists who had sympathy for those Southern plantation owners who treated their slaves with kindness but it did not and should not have changed their resolve to make slave holding illegal because we know that it is wrong for one member of the human family to be treated as a mere possession of another. Abortion is the same. It is not an issue that can be resolved by consensus and there is no room for choice. Every abortion is a death sentence-the baby gets no cjoice in its fate.Forget the circumstances and remember that you, I and every person reading or posting on this site were once a small collection of cells in a womb-we were allowed to live. Nor can we wash our hands like Pontius Pilate of this issue by saying I personally don't agree with abortion but I won't interfere with another's right to have one-if you do not oppose abortion and you vote in pro choice politicians you are supporting abortion by your indifference.You cannot serve two masters You should not remain lukewarm-there are many ways you can support pro life activities.Slavery was once legal Abortion is now legal if enough good people pray, write to their political leaders, vote for pro life representatives the tide can be turned .Contact Helpers of God's Precious Infants/the Family First Alliance/Priests for Life or Rebecca's Vineyard if you want to be part of peaceful positive efforts to right this wrong.