Wrong Again

It is not hard to find articles on Barack Obama’s visit to Notre Dame on Sunday, May 17, 2009. But there was an article by the Associated Press that caught my attention. Julie Pace noted that President Obama sought some common ground between the two sides on abortion.

What common ground do these two sides have? "We can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.” Obama said.

Really? This is the common ground that both sides share. I am in utter disbelief that anyone can come to the conclusion that a human embryo, zygote, or fetus can be killed primarily for the convenience of a mother and simultaneously call it a heart-wrenching decision. This statement tells us two things, at least.

First, it tells us that the pro-choice view is utterly intellectually bankrupt if it finds moral qualms with its stance and yet seeks to further its cause. We have laws that protect animals to varying degrees that are not granted to a human child still in her mother’s uterus. Laws that address, funny enough, humane treatment.[1]So inhumane is the way abortion is actually carried out that the FDA has a higher code of requirements when it inspects slaughter houses then government does on abortion clinics.[2]

Second, the very fact that President Obama admits this is a heart-wrenching decision admits to the reality that it is wrong. Why else would it be heart wrenching? Why else is there moral and spiritual implications? If it is merely a matter of choice then why fret? If you are pro-choice then giving up this ground means admitting that abortion is wrong. If this issue is one of relative perspective then it can only be a situation of position, power and perspective.

The mother is in a position with the support of her government to carry out the abortion. They give her means through access to abortion clinics, funds, engage in laws splitting the home in half so that now neither father of child or grandparents (if the mother is young ) have access, input or knowledge.

The mother has power of life and death in her hand. Think of those words – “life and death.” She does not have “convenience and happiness” within the grasp of her hands. What a lie that has been propagated to believe what you are deciding over is anything other than life and death. Since a primary concern that gives rise to abortion is one of provision why is it that we don’t have stiffer sentences for murders committed against the wealthy? If money is such a clear answer, and someone’s happiness is intrinsic to having means then why does it not surface in other areas of justice when we are making grandiose statements on the value (or lack thereof) of human life. However, Nietzsche would be proud. Give me a better example of a human rising above the herd and doing as she wishes than abortion.

The mother has perspective. Our culture has been fixated on giving multiple reasons for why abortion is the right choice. From the overused example of rape resulting in pregnancy with inflated statistics to the pursuit of happiness someone needs to remind the media that the right to life comes before either liberty or the pursuit of happiness. To take life away is to undermine the foundation of the guiding principles of this country.

Congratulations on your honorary doctorate from Notre Dame Mr. President – now please give us the intellectual integrity that should come with it.
[1] John Piper gives a short discussion on this logic here.
[2] http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Key_Facts_Humane_Slaughter/index.asp