Obama's recent visit to Notre Dame University -- during which he gave a speech and received official honors from the school -- created a controversy that has not yet come to an end. And rightly so. After all, Christians of all stripes
should be angered that a Catholic school heaped accolades on a man who defends a woman's nonexistent right to kill her unborn child with the singlemindedness of a true zealot. But it's not the controversy that interests me as much as
these words spoken by Obama in his speech at Notre Dame:
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 email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the 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’s not what was preventing him 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 that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, 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 thanked him. I didn’t change my 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 our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - 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 is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.
So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."
Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. 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.
Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.
This is faux-empathetic, emotive gobbledegook. It's the precise brand of "I feel yore pain" nonsense liberally dished out by Bill Clinton during his two terms in office (no pun intended). It's feigning interest in opponents' views, while moving ahead with a decidedly unsympathetic, closed-minded agenda. It's an attempt at knocking one's ideological enemies off their game, nothing more. Suggesting that we all handle each other with care, while working with dilligence toward removing existing abortion restrictions, and blocking those in the congressional birth canal, is the height of audacity and dishonesty.
Don't take my word for it. His record in the Senate and the Oval Office speaks for itself:
1. 1997: In the Illinois Senate, he voted against legislation preventing partial birth abortion (infanticide).
2. 2000: In the Illinois Senate, he voted against legislation banning taxpayer funding of abortions.
3. 2001: He opposed legislation protecting survivors of botched abortion attempts. He was the sole Illinois Senator to do so.
4. 2008: He claimed indecision on whether or not life begins at conception -- a position properly reserved for ignoramuses, deceivers, or cowards.
5. He consistently earns 100% ratings from "pro-choice" groups. Example: NARAL gave him 100% ratings in 2005, 2006, and 2007.
6. He promotes and wishes to advance embryonic stem - cell research.
7. He believes the Constitution of the United States is a "living" document. --
The Audacity of Hope, pp. 89 - 92, Oct. 1, 2006
8. He has stated support for
Roe v. Wade.
9. He voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortions (2008).
10. He voted NO on notifying parents of minors receiving out-of-state abortions (2006).
11. Rated
0% out of a possible 100% by the National Right to Life Committee (0 - 15% = "pro-choice;" 16 - 84% = mixed record; 85 - 100% = pro-life).
12. Since becoming president, Obama lifted a restriction put in place by George W. Bush that stopped taxpayer funding of abortions overseas.
He enacted this measure three days after entering office.
The list goes on.
Short of seeking employment at an abortuary, how does one man's record illustrate a more extreme anti-child, anti-life stance? Setting aside his conciliatory rhetoric, do you see anything in this history fitting the descriptors "open - minded," or "fair - minded," or "open - hearted?"
I don't. What I
do see is the record of a far left-wing ideologue -- one who doesn't give a hoot in Hell what anyone thinks of this issue, unless they are in agreement with him.
Mr. Obama can spout his pablum about "common ground" till the cows come home; it's unmitigated hogwash, and he knows it. He even admitted as much in the above discourse. There is no common ground between those who pursue the deaths of innocents, and those who fight for their preservation. Is there mutuality between good and evil?
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? -- 2 Corinthians 6: 14 - 15
Notice how Obama acknowledges that abortion is a "heart - wrenching" decision, with "moral and spiritual dimensions." Of course, he neglects describing why and how this is so. Transparently, he is not of the conviction that abortion is a moral wrong, or spiritually rotten fruit, so what is the message he's conveying, here? The bottom line is that his words do not fit his actions; they contradict them.
Furthermore, if abortion isn't morally wrong, why should we concern ourselves with ensuring its rarity? This is the $64,000 question pro - deathers avoid like the Wicked Witch of the West shuns water.
As an aside, if you're interested in "making adoption more available," you might consider
ceasing the murder of unborn children. Just a thought.
I'd appreciate hearing Obama elaborate on what relation killing infants
in utero has to "equality of women." The last time I checked, men don't get pregnant or give birth, so we can't compare female abortion possibilities to those of males. It's notable that politicians like Obama feel no obligation toward explaining themselves beyond the superficial platitudes they spout like Old Faithful.
As for "clear ethics and sound science," is he kidding? I hope so, because I'm laughing at this notion coming from someone who believes that killing unborn infants for any reason whatsoever should remain restriction - free. And if Obama's unsure when life begins, he has no business mentioning science in the same discussion as the abortion issue, as he has taken a position
against science. The verdict is in; there is no wiggle room for honest (or dishonest) debate on the matter:
life begins at conception. If the president doesn't know this scientific fact, given his position and access to knowledge, we can assume that he champions the adage:
ignorance is bliss. Policy advocation based upon willful ignorance is a form of deception.
Finally, Obama's prevarication about his "fair - mindedness" adds insult to the pro-abortion injuries he has inflicted upon the American people. For his dissimulation is neither clever, nor subtle, given that his record on the issue stands available for all the world to see. One can conclude only that he views the citizenry as gullible sheep on the fold, manipulable and foolish as the wolf coaxes them into the heart of his lair.
