When I was deciding on which college to attend to begin my undergraduate education, there were only a few on the radar screen. I was conflicted between wanting to further explore my faith and my desire to stay closer to home. I knew that I would be studying aerospace engineering, and in the end, I eventually chose Texas A&M (with Rice University for graduate school). However, had I not attended Texas A&M, my choice of university was clear: Notre Dame.
So, it was with great interest and dread that I followed the events of this past weekend when Barack Obama gave the commencement speech to graduates at Norte Dame. The fact that Obama was invited in the first place speaks quite lowly of Notre Dame officials. The fact that he was presented with an honorary degree is insulting. But, as usual, it's Obama's words that are the most appalling as he tries to use his teleprompter-aided eloquence to cut down the pro-life movement.
In today's column by Doug Patton, the author sums up perfectly the record of Barack Obama when it comes to his pro-abortion positions. It is a record of disrespect for innocent human life, and it is a record that Notre Dame officials should have considered. What's more disturbing is that they surely did consider his record, but they invited him anyway.
As an Illinois state senator, he voted to condemn newborns to die in closets after botched abortions. As a United States senator, he voted to allow full-term babies to be aborted up to the moment of birth simply because they were inconvenient. And now, as president
of the United States, he advocates the destruction of human life for the purpose of embryonic stem cell research, he has ordered the export of abortion beyond our shores, and he has promised to sign a tyrannical policy known as the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would sweep away every federal, state and local restriction on abortion — including parental notification, the federal ban on
partial birth abortion, and the conscience clause, which permits medical personnel to opt out of involvement in abortion
procedures.
This is the type of man that Notre Dame officials found to be a suitable speaker? Shame on Notre Dame. Shame on all of them for turning their backs on their prolife positions.
I know there are many who read my columns and not all may agree with me on every issue. So be it. But I feel strongly that I must point out what Obama said during this speech because it not only reinforces his already clear record on abortion, but it also shows how he will twist words in order to get people to "come together" on this issue. His use of moral equivalency is particularly disgusting to me as I believe many Americans will not catch it.
I'm just going to touch on two passages from his speech... but those are enough to tell the story.
As noted in the Associated Press' coverage of the speech, Obama addressed the abortion issue rather than shy away from it. Some would consider this admirable, but from hearing and reading his words, I consider it a trap -- a golden opportunity for Obama to sound like the uniter in chief, but in reality, an opportunity to change the playing field on the abortion debate.
In his speech: "Obama called for 'open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words' in the public debate over the issue, arguing that there was no reason to reduce the other side to caricatures." No reason? We are talking about the issue of protecting innocent
human life, and Obama suggests we "chill out" about it.
Obama wants us to have "open minds?" Open minds about what? He may believe that stating when life begins is "above his pay grade," but I don't. When a sperm cell and an egg come together, is the result something that is inanimate? Is it dead? No, clearly the result is a living organism. Will that organism become a full-grown dog? Will that organism become a full-grown cat? No. What we have is a human being. As much as the left wants to frame this as a debate about restricting "choices," what we have is a debate about protecting human life and ensuring that every human life is afforded the same rights.
How's that for "fair minded words?"
Obama's other phrase that I will focus on is more troubling, but on its surface appears to be compassionate. That was his intention. In his speech he said, "We can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions."
First of all, with the emphasis placed on providing safe and easy abortions by so-called "pro-choice" organizations, it is clear that not every abortion is a "heart-wrenching decision." These organizations make it so that it doesn't have to be. The woman is portrayed as a "victim" of an "unwanted pregnancy," and thus the organizations will do everything they can to make the process straight-forward. What they fail to realize (or worse... purposely ignore) is that the "unwanted pregnancy" is an innocent human life.
But that is just the first part. To me, the scary part of Obama's seemingly compassionate statement is the moral equivalency he tries to sneak in. By suggesting that "we can still agree" on the difficulty of the decision implies that it is somehow on par with the resulting action. It's not! Agonizing over the taking of an innocent human life is NOT morally equivalent to the actual taking of that life.
Yes, a pregnancy (whether wanted or unwanted) can carry sometimes extreme levels of stress with it. Am I ready to be a parent? How can I afford to take care of a child? How will this affect my career? And on and on. Yes, there can be a great deal of stress, and whether a person is "ready" or not or can "afford it" or not are questions that will surely run through someone's mind. But there are people out there who are ready. Who can afford it. Yet, who are unable to have children of their own. They are ready and able to adopt. Compare nine months of stress to the alternative... an eternity of nothing. No life, no opportunity. No playing in the sandbox, no learning the alphabet. No going to school and learning to read. Nothing. Nothing except death.
There is no moral equivalent. Agonizing over an abortion is not the same as ending a human life.
Notre Dame officials may have wanted to push the envelope or reach for some new boundary. Who knows what their intentions really were. But as a Catholic and a Christian, I believe in the sanctity of innocent human life. I believe each new life should be afforded the opportunities and rights as everyone else. For those who consider themselves to be "pro-choice," my question is simply this: What choice does the unborn child have?
No comments:
Post a Comment