Joseph Bottum has a well written and insightful piece on the politics of abortion under Obama. Here are some clips but go read the whole thing.
On abortion, Obama is the complete man, his support so ingrained that even his carefully controlled public speaking can’t help revealing it. He’s not a fanatic about abortion; he’s what lies beyond fanaticism. He’s the end product of hard-line support for abortion: a man for whom the very question of abortion seems unreal. The opponents of abortion are, for Obama, not to be compromised with or even fought with, in a certain sense. They are, rather, to be explained away as a sociological phenomenon—their pro-life view something that will wither away as they gradually come to understand the true causes of the economic and social bitterness they have, in their undereducated and intolerant way, attached to abortion.
The result is already clear, with an announcement from Obama’s transition team, only days after the election, that the new president will remove all restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research immediately on taking office. The Mexico City policy (which requires all groups that receive federal funds not to perform or promote abortion abroad) will disappear the first day, as well. Back in 1992, the Clinton administration gave social policy at the United Nations and other treaty organizations—all the minor jobs in international affairs—to the far left as part of its spoils in the Democratic victory, and the first signs suggest that the Obama administration will do the same.
The Freedom of Choice Act currently before Congress is as extreme a measure as the nation has ever seen, invalidating for the entire country all restrictions on abortion before viability, including parental notification, waiting periods, and partial-birth abortion bans. Obama was one of its sponsors in the Senate, and in July he announced at a Planned Parenthood event that “the first thing I’d do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing that I’d do.”
….
More to the point, such advice is probably unnecessary. Without resistance from the White House, the congressional Democrats are certain to push beyond the general public’s views on the life issues. And when they do, the Republicans will be forced to trumpet the Democrats’ extremism. That’s an inherent pressure on the politics of opposition, and it will keep the life issues in the news, whatever pro- Roe Republican pundits and activists wish.Meanwhile, what should the pro-life movement do? The reasoning offered by some of the Catholic public figures who supported Obama was embarrassingly bad, but we should not, for that reason alone, admit to the perpetual tying of the pro-life cause to the Republican party. The Republicans have done some good and some ill for the cause since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, but, however one weighs it up, the results are not full repayment for the support pro-lifers have given the party over those years. The coming fights promise no new seriousness on the part of the Republicans. They talk a better game than they play, in Congress at least, and they have often been better on the life issues when they are out of power than when they are in.
emphasis added
Why is it a bad thing that Obama supports choice?
Hey Karen. Thanks for stopping by and thanks for asking such a great question.
Do you see how your question is a perfect illustration of how Joseph Bottum describes Barack Obama above? You have already decided that abortion is at least a morally neutral thing and therefore have that assumption built into your question. It is as if anybody opposed to abortion has no legitimate right to the position. Why would anybody be against choice? the very notion is ludicrous.
To illustrate, let me ask you a question. Why is it a good thing that Obama supports the murder (funded by taxpayers) of weak helpless human beings whose only crime is being conceived?
See what I mean?
Choice is a great thing if the choice at issue is morally neutral. Such as whether or not I have a turkey sandwich or a ham sandwich for lunch.
Choice is not a good thing at all when I am considering whether or not my children are too much of a burden. My kids are 15 and 13. Should I have the “choice” to kill them? Why not? Why is it different if they are 15 weeks old or 13 weeks old?
So it is a bad thing that Obama supports this choice because this choice should not be available as a morally neutral option. This choice results in the death of a helpless human being.
I understand that this is a topic that is fraught with emotion. I also understand somewhat the conflicting emotions that women experience when wrestling with this issue. Take a look at this previous post of mine and the links therein.
http://bkingr.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/help-for-the-hurting/
Don’t ever fall for the lie that you can do whatever you want to do and have no consequences. We all make choices every minute of every day and we all pay the price for those choices.
Great post! I really enjoy reading your blog. Keep up the good work. I’ve just started a new blog that will be highlighting the dangers of the secular progressive movement (pro-gay “rights”, pro-abortion, anti-religious freedoms, etc). Unfortunately, most Christians still don’t know what’s going on out there and the mainstream media certainly isn’t covering it.
We’re looking to build a solid group of social conservatives who’ll frequent our site regularly and contribute to some good discussions. I hope you’ll check us out!
If you’ll add us to your blogroll we’ll gladly add you to ours. Just drop us a comment over at our blog so that we’ll know to add you. Our blog is at http://religionandmorality.wordpress.com/
Thanks!
thanks for the feedback, but I have to let you know that I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I do not wish to participate in any culture war except that one for Jesus’ sheep. In other words I want to be about the business of reconciliation not division.
II Corinthians 5:11 says that since we know what it means to fear God, we seek to persuade men. Paul wasn’t talking about persuading men to adopt laws to enforce a christian culture by legal fiat. Paul was talking about persuading people to be reconciled to God.
Here is what Paul says in verses 20 and 21 of chapter 5: “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
I believe that fighting politically to restore an imagined golden period of yesteryear is a harmful distraction for christians. Let God make his appeal through you and me that those lost people around us be reconciled to him by accepting the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross.
Obviously, as citizens, we have the right to vote and we should vote with moral issues in mind, but devoting our lives to a secular political struggle is allowing ourselves to be distracted away from pursuit of the main thing.
Pingback: the purpose of the church « Interstitial