Friday, August 22, 2008
Abortion's Reluctant Champion?
Here's a remarkably well done analysis of Sen. Obama's response to the abortion question Rick Warren posed last week during the Civil Forum. Generally, I wouldn't put something this partisan on my blog, but it is wonderfully expansive and can be applied more generally to the arguments anyone uses to excuse abortion out of one side of the mouth while they despair over it out the other. Enjoy reading, and saying, "that's what I'm talkin' 'bout," (that's more fun than amen when dealing with political subjects!). Then come back and tell me if it's possible to be a reluctant champion of abortion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I watched the interviews, and was profoundly disturbed by Obama's statement regarding abortion. One thing I noticed was the cultural relativism in his statements on the morality of abortion. CR argues that there is no objective truth, it is all subjective based on the morals of each person.
WARREN: Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?
OBAMA: I am in favor, for example, of limits on late term abortions if there is an exception for the mother's health. Now from the perspective of those who, you know, are pro-life, I think they would consider that inadequate. And I respect their views. I mean one of the things that I've always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins as conception, then -- and you are consistent with that belief -- then I can't argue with you on that, because that is a core issue of faith for you...
Notice what's implied here: if I believe something is wrong, that makes it wrong for me. But it doesn't necessarily make it wrong for someone else.
Anyway, I was very pleased with what McCain said about abortion, but to be fair, he comes out on the wrong side of the embryonic stem cell research. He didn't go into detail on his answer, but if wouldn't surprise me a bit if his vies on stem cells mirrors Obama's abortion position.
Thanks Pizzaman, for the comments.
I find the elitism revealed in such CR views offensive, i.e. "There, there, I would never deign to be entangled in such quaint notions, but I understand if you are" (pat on the head).
It a question of right or wrong concerning life or death, objective realities-- it deserves a stance, not obfuscation!
Thanks for the link it was a very good analysis. It's too bad Rick Warren didn't press him on his views instead of leaving blogs to do the job. Where was the defense of the unborn?
Ian,
Methinks you're not too happy with Rick Warren! ;-)
The difficult thing about Roe v. Wade is that it is actually a "conservative" decision. The State of Texas argued that the government had a right to intrude into and regulate the reproductive decisions of its citizens. Based upon a line of cases construing the "right to be let alone" from government intrusion, the Supreme Court held the line against the government. So, while the result of Roe is tragic, its underlying logic is (or was) a plank of old-school conservatives and independents.
Anon,
Interesting take on the subject, although it was two of the court's conservatives (White and Renquist) that vigorously dissented in the opinion. One can either define "conservative" as resistant to change, upholding tradition (what it always meant in the past) or preserving individual responsibility and freedom (which is what the word means today politically). If taken the latter way, the ruling could be considered conservative jurisprudence (oddly enough), even though the dissent could be framed conservative if the former definition was in view.
Of course all this would be moot if life was defined as beginning at conception. If so, the ruling would take on a bizarro world liberality that valued the convenience of a mother over the rights of a helpless child.
I don't know if that question was part of the Roe v. Wade argument or not, I should ask Peter Smythe.
Post a Comment