Dispatches from Obama Beach
Courtesy of Professor Douglas W. Kmiec, whose head is now deeply buried in the proverbial sand:
“I do not understand Senator Obama to be pro-abortion . . . .”
Then perhaps you need to brush up on your research skills, professor.
I interpret Kmiec’s statement to mean that Obama is not pro-abortion in the literal sense. That is, while Obama is certainly pro-choice and wants to preserve the rights of women to have abortions if they so choose, that’s not the same as viewing an abortion as a good thing.
Mark-
I am sure that very few folks would care to be labeled “proabortion,” but Obama’s actions speak louder than his “pretty” words.
I submit that this is a fundamentally flawed conclusion. It suggests that not wanting a pregnancy is a valid enough reason in itself to terminate said pregnancy. This reasoning validates a low view of human dignity, which is the real reason that abortion is so prevalent. This culture (with much help from the liberals) has rejected the ideal that human life is sacred, and it is the removal of that ideal that has led to abortion. I do not see Senator Obama supporting efforts to teach the value of human dignity in his proposals to support personal responsibility.
As such, it is absurd on its face to suggest that electing Senator Obama will result in a more pro-life culture than electing Senator McCain.
What has Obama done or said to indicate that he views abortion as an inherently good thing (i.e., pro-abortion in the literal sense rather than in the way that the term is used in the political arena) rather than a necessary evil?
Kmiec has offically become a complete and utter dolt.
Senator Obama has certainly denied being “pro-abortion” and gone so far as to assert that “no one is pro-abortion” (in one of his debates with Alan Keyes in 2004).
My question, which I’ve never had anyone attempt to answer, is this: Given a hypothetical “pro-abortion” legislator, on what pieces of legislation would his vote differ from that of Senator Obama either in the U.S. or Illinois Senates?
And, if there is no practical difference between Sen. Obama and a pro-abortion legislator, why not call him what he is?
Perhaps Prof. Kmiec could help.
Paul: That works if your goal is to attach a label to Obama that is politically appealing to you. That doesn’t make the label correct. Just because Obama would vote the same way as “the hypothetical pro-abortion” legislator doesn’t make it correct to ascribe the same label to both.
Professor Kmiec and Gerald Campbell seem to have been comparing notes. I never thought I’d see the day when allegedly “devout” Catholics would try to defend the “pro-choice” position as anything other than what it is: support for legalized abortion-on-demand.
But, hey, I’m sure the unborn are at least happy to know that someone can benefit from the useful distinction between “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion”. Because it sure as hell ain’t the unborn.
Given a hypothetical “pro-abortion†legislator, on what pieces of legislation would his vote differ from that of Senator Obama either in the U.S. or Illinois Senates?
That legislator would vote to increase access to abortion, while also working to decrease access to contraceptives, and either reducing sex education entirely or weakening it, perhaps to abstinence-only.
I hate to call anyone a “liar”, but I have no problem saying that the Professor is truth-impaired on the basis of this statement in the piece to which Feddie links:
“Of course, there are many more reasons to affirm my original endorsement of the Senator, including his willingness to:
•Transcend the politics of division – so well illustrated on any given day by the unfortunately base tactics of the Clinton or McCain campaigns (see the recent GOP ad in North Carolina once again dredging up Reverend Wright) …”
Uhhh, perhaps Professor Kmiec has his head so far buried in … errr … uhhh … sand (yeah, that’s it) that he missed the fact that McCain was not only NOT responsible for the Wright ad, but condemned the ad and the North Carolina GOP for engaging in “divisive” politics. And I want Professor Kmiec to tell us in detail EXACTLY which “base tactics” the McCain campaign itself has engaged in. He can’t because that entire paragraph is a dissembling piece of disinformation.
Kmiec knows that there really IS a candidate who has shown an ability to transcend the political divide (at great political risk to himself, I might add)
, and it’s NOT Obama, who has been little more than a good little footsoldier toeing the party line of left-liberal orthodoxy. In fact, beyond his rhetoric, Obama has done absolutely NOTHING in his short career to evidence that he is anything other than a left-liberal pro-abortion secularist.
I cannot understand how any conservative (social, fiscal, or both) can pick Obama over McCain.
McCain is far from perfect…but Obama? If you were standing in New York looking at Maine, Obama’s left is somewhere between California and Guam.
“Michelle Obama
February 17, 2004
Dear Friends:
We have all been concerned lately with the rise of conservatism in this country, especially as it relates to women. You?ve read the alarming news about the Justice Department?s request for hospitals to turn over the private medical records of dozens of patients. This cynical ploy is designed to intimidate a group of physicians and force them to drop their lawsuit seeking to have the so-called partial birth abortion ban ruled unconstitutional.
The fact remains, with no provision to protect the health of the mother, this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned. Attorney General Ashcroft and president bush believe so zealously in their cause that the privacy rights of patients are under assault. They believe we have no federal right to privacy when it concerns our medical histories.
On March 16th, we have a chance to nominate a candidate who will be tireless in the fight to protect women. It isn?t simply about the right to choose, or privacy rights. It is about pay equity, about ending domestic violence, promoting health care around the world, and letting doctors decide treatment options, not federal judges.
It goes without saying that we must win back the U.S. Senate and hold our ground as a check against the right-wing executive branch. Illinois will be a key battleground and your vote is critical.
My husband has stood up for women time and again, and I am proud of his record. He understands that casting a vote on the floor of the Senate takes greater courage than issuing a position paper. Oftentimes, a well intentioned law is in fact a flawed law. That?s why it is critical we nominate someone who has faced these tough choices. That?s why nominating an experienced legislator is so important in this race. It takes courage to cast a vote.
Who among the Democrats running has a proven record? Who among the candidates running for the Senate in Illinois has stood up to the right wing politicians and voted against their agenda? Who can we count on to keep the Bush/Ashcroft team from appointing the Supreme Court Justice that will vote against Roe v. Wade?
Please join me in sending a message of unity and strength by attending the Women for Obama Luncheon on February 23rd at the Hyatt Regency. Lunch costs $150 and includes remarks from our friends the Reverend Willie Barrow and Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. To reserve your seat please call the campaign office headquarters at 312-427-6400 or log on to the Obama for Illinois Website.
I urge you to stand with me and support my husband at this event. You know the stakes have never been higher and we can?t depend on untested amateurs and administrators in this fight. Barack is a fighter and he will be a champion we can be proud of.
Thanks you so much for all of your support.
Signature: Michelle Obama”
Now how could anyone possibly think that Obama and his charming frau are pro-aborts?
Stealth, if you believe that contraception leads to less abortion, you are mistaken. A contraception mentality, either in individuals or in a culture, leads directly to an abortion mentality. Roe succeeded Griswold by less than a decade, a pattern which you will find repeated throughout the West.
Likewise, increased sex education leads to increased sexual activity, which doesn’t reduce abortion either.
Mark, if the distinction between “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” leads to no difference in predicting behavior, of what value is it, except to provide emotional comfort and political cover to those who deny being “pro-abortion”.
Paul: You ask what value is it? It’s more intellectually honest.
Look, I give credit to the anti-abortion folks — getting people to think of Obama and other Democrats as “pro-abortion” rather than “pro-choice” definitely benefits you politically. But, do you honestly believe that Obama is “pro-abortion” in the sense that he views abortion as a good thing?
Mark–What has Obama ever done or said that suggests that he truly thinks abortion is a bad thing? Every chance he’s had, he’s voted against any restriction on abortion. He even voted against legislation that would protect children who survived abortion. Talk is cheap. Ignore the lip service about abortion being unfortunate, etc., and his actions speak lound and clear.
I think he views abortion as a necessary evil…that doesn’t mean he thinks it’s a good thing (as the term “pro-abortion” implies)
I give credit to the anti-abortion folks — getting people to think of Obama and other Democrats as “pro-abortion†rather than “pro-choice†definitely benefits you politically.
Mark gets full points for the chutzpah line of the day. It is the pro-aborts who have done all sorts of semantical gymnastics to portray themselves as pro-”choice,” as though this distinction suddenly makes their position any less vile. Is there a practical difference between a pro-”choice” politician that personally is uncomfortable with abortion and another politician who happens to think abortion is itselfokay? No, because they will vote the same exact way every time.
And yet we’re supposed to listen to some line of bull[droppings] about how Kmiec’s steaming pile of crap is somehow technically true. Come on. Stop playing games.
Slick Barry and Mean Michelle Obama – a bitter pair. SlickBarry.com
“But, do you honestly believe that Obama is “pro-abortion†in the sense that he views abortion as a good thing?”
I absolutely do believe that. It’s evidenced in his actions and in his words. He views babies as “punishment” and believes that they are fair game for killing even after they’re born. He lies to avoid the implications of his position, and so yes, I do believe that he — and, I strongly suspect, you — believes that abortion is a positive good that must be defended in our culture, like free speech, and not an evil that cannot and should not be tolerated.
But neither of you has the balls the stand up and openly admit to your loving embrace of such a cruel and evil practice.
You see, I don’t believe in “necessary” evil”. Evil is unnecessary. A just war is not a “necessary evil”. It is the good and positive duty of a good nation under specific circumstances. Slavery was never a “necessary evil”; like abortion, it was a certain evil that was tolerated at great cost to the nation, the culture, its victims and even its practitioners.
And abortion is most certainly not a necessary evil. It is most absolutely and certainly unnecessary, and only those who are committed to it would have the unmitigated gall to claim otherwise.