I just came back from watching Obama’s inaugural address.
It was a great speech. Truly great. Beautiful and powerful.
I wanted to believe every word. I still do.
But as I listened, I kept being struck by how many of those beautiful and powerful words were completely undermined by Obama’s extreme pro-abortion stance.
How is expanding abortion “rights” going to hold Americans responsible for themselves and accountable to our historical values as a nation or to future generations? Who are these future generations and descendants going to be if abortion gets even more out of control than it is now?
How are we going to be a nation of hope and virtues amid the storm clouds when we keep creating our own storm clouds, and you’re more in favor of it than anybody?
How are we going to perpetuate the Founding Fathers’ vision of rights, justice, and equality for all when we’re basically counting an entire class of human beings as non-human?
How are we going to be any different or any better than those who have supported slavery and deprived people of their God-given rights in the past?
How, President Obama? What are you really going to do to be true to your great visions?
On a related note, I look forward to seeing what, if anything, his reaction will be to the March for Life on Thursday.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
20 January 2009 at 1:01 PM
futiledemocracy
I don’t think I heard one word on Abortion, let alone how wonderful he thinks Abortion is.
Everyone has a different opinion on the subject. America should not impose Religious beliefs on an entire nation when it comes to subjects like Abortion.
What you consider to be “human”, some of us don’t. That doesn’t mean that America is doomed. In fact, much to the contrary, it means intelligent thought prevails over religious propaganda and speculation.
20 January 2009 at 1:31 PM
Practicing Catholic
Futile Democracy: Where did I say he spoke about abortion in his address? I said that some of what he said was incompatible with his position on abortion, which is already established and a matter of public record. It is not speculation on my part whatsoever. I posted about it all throughout the presidential campaign and election season, and I didn’t just pull it out of my arse.
The pro-life stance is not about religious belief. It’s about justice, rights, and biology. That’s why the pro-life movement is composed of people of every religion and none. (I wrote about this just a couple of days ago.)
You know, people on both sides of the issue are capable of intelligent thought, and people on both sides get bogged down in speculation and propaganda. Given a choice between an opponent who thinks rationally and an ally who doesn’t, I will respect and relate to the opponent more. I’m a seeker of truth, and I like dealing with other seekers of truth, even if we don’t agree at the moment.
I’d really like to hear your explanation of what is human and what is not. I’d also like to hear any compelling evidence you may have that Obama does not hold a radically pro-abortion position.
21 January 2009 at 4:21 AM
futiledemocracy
You say “pro abortion” as if we’re all sat here, encouraging women to kill kids.
Right up until the foetus develops a nervous system it is not a human. It is a bunch of cells. I’d agree that is has the potential to be a life, but it isn’t a life. Up until that point, it is only life based on the Biblical view of “life”.
It also has absolutely nothing to do with anyone other than the woman who’s body it is.
George Bush and the Republicans use of “pro-life” is also contradictory, given that they only seem to be pro-life, as long as that life is American, not middle eastern, not gay, or not in the way of their unhealthy love of oil. Thousands of innocent lives have been lost due to the Republicans over the past eight years, they then have the nerve to call themselves “pro life”.
21 January 2009 at 7:10 AM
Lexington
“We”? She was referring to Obama, not directly to you, futiledemocracy.
As one person defines life as a being with a central nervous system, yet another as one with a beating heart, and another as viable outside of the womb, we enter a slipperly slope of relativity, when life should be far more concrete concept to be grasped.
I can never condone what George W. Bush did, nor can I to those who war-mongered. I did not read Practicing Catholic doing so, either.
Life in the womb is the MOST innocent. It is the most fundamental issue to a Catholic; the very right to exist. These people who were killed in the womb were never even given a chance. They had no choices afforded to them. Life begins at the moment of conception, when all of the genetic information has come together to form that person. Catholics believe this is when the soul is imparted at this moment.
God Bless you, and may life be afforded to all, including those who are at war, and minorities who suffer discriminatory practices.
21 January 2009 at 12:42 PM
Practicing Catholic
FD: I will overlook the political axe-grinding, except to inform you that I have never voted for a Republican president.
Your criteria of a developed nervous system is arbitrary and imprecise. For one thing, it’s not like the nervous system develops overnight. It becomes recognizable in the embryo within 4 weeks of conception and keeps developing from there. Any criteria you might have for how developed it must be before the embryo is a human is likewise arbitrary. We simply don’t have the knowledge to neatly draw a cut off point between non-human and human. The only non-arbitrary cut off point we have is conception.
The notion of a “potential” life seems meaningless. How does that bunch of cells develop a nervous system if it’s not alive? Inanimate things don’t develop, or at least do not self-develop. The division of cells is a function of living organisms, no matter how tiny or funny-looking the organisms may be.
The human embryo is a self-developing body, not some off-shoot of the woman’s body. It relies upon the mother’s body for nourishment and protection, and providing that nourishment and protection is exactly what a woman’s body is designed to do. It’s not like the child viciously carves out a womb and occupies it like a parasite. That’s simply the nature of the biological relationship between mother and child. Not wanting that relationship is not a just reason for killing the child; getting into that relationship is avoidable in nearly every case.
None of this is biblical. This is all biology and logic. I do not need to rely on religion to defend my pro-life position.
Of course, this discussion is largely moot given that President Obama, along with many other politicians, have supported the legal right to kill completely developed children who are capable of surviving outside the womb, through partial-birth abortion. They also support removing every existing state and federal restriction on abortion and outlawing the creation of any future restrictions. That’s what the “Freedom of Choice Act” is all about. Obama promised Planned Parenthood that he would sign it as soon as he became president. Fortunately, it hasn’t yet gotten through Congress, and hopefully it never will.
I call that position pro-abortion because it is so beyond the average pro-choice position. In my experience, the vast majority of people who call themselves “pro-choice” actually favor restrictions on abortion, including the partial-birth abortion ban. According to one survey I saw, something like 70% of pro-choice people favor restricting abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment of the mother’s life. If such restrictions existed, abortion could be practically eliminated.
Pro-choicers could do a lot of good if they would stand up and tell the president and the government that they don’t like abortion and it should at least be restricted. But many pro-choicers seem unwilling to take that kind of stand, opting to say, “Well, I personally think abortion is wrong and it should be restricted, but I don’t want to impose that belief on others.” I don’t understand that kind of self-censorship. It’s a denial of one’s own freedom of choice, and it simply allows other, more radical beliefs to be imposed on all of us.
If you have further comments, please feel free. I only ask that you leave off the assumption that I am a political or religious fundamentalist just because I’m pro-life.
21 January 2009 at 1:25 PM
Practicing Catholic
Lexington: When life and/or humanity begins is a fundamental issue for everybody, and you illustrate the problem very well: people make all kinds of assertions about what the beginning point is, and none of those assertions can be substantiated. Nobody can validly define a beginning point beyond conception. Any attempt to do so will be arbitrary. A shot in the dark. That’s a pretty shabby foundation to lay for dealing with issues of life and humanity.
I couldn’t bear to be so careless with such an important issue… and yet so many people are. I wish they’d all ask themselves honestly why that is. Why do they allow so much carelessness and uncertainty when taking a position on the most important and fundamental issues?
Regarding ensoulment, I don’t know if there has ever been any agreement on when that occurs. I tend to leave that question in the realm of theological speculation, as it just tends to muddy the waters and make non-Catholics freak out. We’ve seen how people like Pelosi and Biden have tried to use it as a distraction from real Church teachings and from what we know about the biological origins of each person. They also conveniently ignore the fact that even when ensoulment was debated, nobody ever used it as a defense of abortion. The ancients and medievals never thought abortion was OK… unlike us enlightened moderns.
God be with you.