A half an hour before the 2009 Commencement Ceremony began at the University of Notre Dame, the Huffington Post broke the press embargo and published the prepared text of President Obama's commencement address. And, as I predicted, the President was unable to resist the temptation to discuss abortion.
What I didn't expect was that he would address the topic so bluntly. After the joking introduction that is standard in such speeches, the President wasted little time in transitioning into a discussion of "diversity," which he described as "ever-growing." This "diversity of thought, of culture, and of belief," he argued, needs to be reconciled with "our ever-shrinking world" so that we can "find a way to live together as one human family."
Set aside the fact that the family is, by its very nature, the least diverse of both natural and social institutions in which we find ourselves. President Obama simply takes for granted the idea that increasing diversity is a good thing. The diversity he is talking about is not the diversity of races and ethnicities and cultures, but a diversity of beliefs on fundamental principles, such as the sanctity of human life.
The examples that the President uses makes it clear where he is headed:
The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved.
The problem is that the "gay activist" and the evangelical pastor are not simply divided by culture but by fundamental principles. And fundamental principles lie at the root of the debate over embryonic stem-cell research.
But rather than address these moral questions at the level of fundamental principles, President Obama suggests that everything can be solved by presuming "good faith" on the part of others. Yet we do not need to presume bad faith in order to believe that those who think that an unborn child is merely a lump of cells, and that ending his life is not tantamount to murder, are fundamentally in error.
President Obama unintentionally illustrates the problem in the example he uses in his speech:
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."
How did Obama respond?
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 [emphasis mine]. 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.
But how exactly did candidate Obama open his heart and mind to the Christian doctor? Not by reconsidering his position on abortion—he tells us that right up front. Rather, the extent of his opening of heart and mind was a change in rhetoric. If referring to "right-wing ideologues" loses votes, then dropping the language is the smart political move.
The only dialogue that the President is willing to have on the question of abortion will take place at this level. As he sums up his vision of this dialogue:
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.
To say that the decision to have an abortion is "heart-wrenching" does not address whether it is right—in fact, quite the opposite. No one disagrees that we need to change the circumstances that lead women to consider abortion an option, but if we cannot first agree that abortion should not be an option, then we'll never agree on what it means to ensure that "our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."
In fact, when President Obama lifted restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, he used a very similar line, saying that federal policy now would be guided by sound science rather than ideology.
And that's why those who think that President Obama would be happy just to see the issue of abortion go away are wrong. What he wants is for the debate to go away. And the only way to do that is to co-opt those who know that abortion is wrong, by convincing them that we all want the same thing:
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 isn't even President Clinton's "safe, legal, and rare." This is "legal and beyond debate."
"You say it's life; I say it's not. Surely we can both continue to say these things without reducing each other to caricature."
Meanwhile, every day of every month of every year, 4,000 children will die in their mothers' wombs.
"Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words."
But not truth. That word never appears in President Obama's speech. Diversity and fair-mindedness, it seems, have room for every opinion, no matter how mistaken, but no room for truth.
(Photo by Jeff Haynes-Pool/Getty Images)
I would like to comment on the safe, legal, and rare rhetoric that we hear so often from pro abortion people. There is no safe abortion. There is always a death. Legal is a human term. God says do not kill. Lastly rare. If everyone does truly and honestly want abortion to be rare then why don’t we have required ultrasounds of the baby shown to the mother before abortion??? The answer is simple. The president and other democrats oppose this type of law because it exposes the truth. The truth would make abortion rare. The truth is that the choice of abortion is evil and should not be presented to women in a tough spot but instead life and a hand up should be given. God bless us and God help all.
Excellent analysis.
God also says the he without sin should cast the first stone and to judge not so ye not be judged. Moreover later in the book of James it explains that if you have broken one of God’s laws you have broken them all. Have you ever treated someone unlike you’d like to be treated? Have you ever lied? That’s the same as genocide because sins neither qualified nor quantified. So, please stop with the self-richeous, better than though BS and begin to practice what you preach.
Christ did indeed say what you say He said. He also preached the truth to the scribes and Pharisees, rather than allowing them to preach to His Disciples. He did not enter into “dialogue” with error; He confronted it, offering Himself as the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Judgment is for God alone; yet Christians are called to speak up for the Truth. In this case, speaking up for the Truth wasn’t even necessary; all that was required was not to give a platform to error.
Setay, no one is condemning the sinner, only the sin. Abortion is wrong, pure and simple. What the president says is that that is a matter of opinion. Do we ever say that it’s a matter of opinion that murder or incest is wrong? When did standing up for what is right become wrong?
The DNC recently took “rare” out of their platform.
If pro-choice advocates consider the child in the womb to be nothing but a cluster of cells, then why “safe, legal, and RARE?” No one argues that removal of possible malignant skin cells should be rare. The “rare” qualification presupposes that there is something different about an abortion that sets its apart from other surgical procedures, such as the removal of gallstones. The pro-choicers really are acknowledging the TRUTH that abortion leaves women with mental and emotional scars, and possibly physical ones, that cannot be associated with any other type of surgery. I think Obama understands that and is trying to wriggle out of the moral quandary he finds himself in. I doubt he can succeed without first confronting the TRUTH. Let’s pray that he will.
Recently I came across a curious note in the Federal Poverty Guidelines. The note said that a pregnant woman is counted as two. If one is a human being, what is the other and why is it being counted as a human being in need of food, shelter, and clothing?
As a Christian (not just as a catholic)I know abortion is wrong, but should that mean that we do not listen to the opposite view? no, should that mean we do not have dialogue with people of different opinion? no. We must continue to voice our beliefs, persuade in our actions and love those with the opposite opinion and welcome them into our midst, otherwise, how can we ever say that we are emulating our dearest Lord Jesus Christ? God bless America, God bless president Obama and We thank God for Democracy. – Rosie
I wonder if abortion proponents realize the hypocricy of their position when they talk about prenatal care, crime resulting in the death of a preborn child, or why an abortion would be “heart-wretching” if you weren’t doing anything wrong!
I think that in this situation, and many others as well, the never ending onslaught of super conservative viewpoints that make up this ask.com site should consider an alternative viewpoint, this time from a little known catholic publication with some credibility, L’Osservatore Romano. Some of you may have heard of it?
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0902273.htm
Frankly, I’m surprised, Kyle, given your previous comments expressing dissent from Church teaching on the ordination of women, the understanding of the priest as acting in persona Christi, and your downplaying of the importance of abortion as a grave moral evil, that you would be so quick to turn to L’Osservatore Romano, which certainly has never supported your dissent.
It is common for the secular media to portray L’Osservatore Romano as the “voice of the Vatican,” but Catholics should know better. It is indeed the newspaper of the Holy See, and it’s certainly true that many official pronouncements are first printed in it. But the weight of such pronouncements comes not by being printed in L’Osservatore Romano but by being official pronouncements.
News reports and editorials, signed or unsigned, in L’Osservatore Romano are not official or even “semi-official” statements of the Holy See. Thus, both the seeming praise of President Obama mentioned in the CNS story you linked to and the seeming criticism published in a separate article in L’Osservatore Romano on the very same day (see “Vatican newspaper praises and criticizes Obama in two separate news stories“) have exactly the same ecclesiastical weight—which is to say, none at all.
First, I would like to apologize for the tone of my last posting, which was much more polemical and sarcastic than I intended.
Also, I will no longer be participating in any postings on this ask.com site. I am very disappointed with the continuous harsh and mean spirited tone that occurs in this forum, a forum that is supposed to be about Christ and Catholicism, and even more disppointed in my participation in it which I fully admit. It is true that while we argue back and forth, the majority of us with a large amount of anonymity, an entire world exists, the majority of which is waiting to even hear the Gospel of Christ. While I don’t have any brilliant ideas for how to exactly bring the Gospel to others, I plan to start with the vocation of becoming a physician, which I have been called to and will complete in approximately two years. I have also been fortunate to experience the Church at its best, both in the U.S. and in two different seminaries in Rome, and so I know, as we all know, that there is much more to the Church and the Faith than our arguing here.
I wish the best to all of you.
First, I would like to apologize for my previous post, which was much more sarcastic and polemical than I intended.
Also, I will no longer be participating in discussions on this ask.com site. I have been repeatedly disappointed by the argumentative and harsh tone with which people discuss issues here, a site that is supposed to be about Christ and Catholicism, and I am even more disappointed with my participation in it. As we know, while we argue back and forth here, (and almost everyone except Scott does so with much anonymity), there is the entire world waiting, the majority of which is waiting to even hear the Gospel of Christ. While I do not have any brilliant ideas for how we should best bring the Gospel to other people, I plan to start with the vocation of becoming a physician, which I have been called to and will complete in approximately two years, God willing. I have also been fortunate to experience the best of the Church, both in the U.S. and in two different seminaries in Rome, and so I know, as we all know, that there is so much more to our Faith than the exchange that occurs here. I wish all of you the best.
Oh Scott, you are very frustrating to read. Where should I begin to dispute your thoughts!
just a few points then
1) “As I predicted, the President was unable to resist the temptation to discuss abortion” Great way to set the tone for your article (that was sarcastic). Do you honestly think that Obama was tempted to discuss abortion…you make is sound like an evil in itself to discuss the issue. so in other words, you make it sound as if, Obama was unable to resist the temptation of “eating an apple from the forbidden tree” Forget the fact that it was in the news for several months before hand and for him to not discuss it would be him shying away from an extremely important issue. Come on, lets at least try to start off with a fair minded thesis statement for your article!
2) “rather than address these moral questions at the level of fundamental principles, President Obama suggests that everything can be solved by presuming “good faith” on the part of others.” Obama has a very good point here. EXTREMELY thoughtful point. If we do not at least start out with good faith in other people, then you are immediately labeling them wrong and “evil”. Let me make this point here. You may think that abortion is evil, but the person committing the action is not evil. Keep that in mind as that is what obama is trying to say. If we immediately start off thinking the other person is bad, where do we go from there? in order to work through these difficulties, he is suggesting that we each come to the table with the honest realization that people are good at heart.
3) “What he wants is for the debate to go away. And the only way to do that is to co-opt those who know that abortion is wrong, by convincing them that we all want the same thing”
Again you have written this saying he wants us all to think the same way has he does. You are certainly wrong. If he wanted debate to go away, why does he continually talk about the issue? he appears to be extremely aware that people have widely differing viewpoints on this and other issues and suggests that the only way things can be improved is through discussion.
Scott, please remember he asked people to all come to the table in good faith to discuss the issue. I hope that your next article reflects some good faith on your part when “interpreting” what our president says!