Opinion: Robert P. George on 'Obama's Abortion Extremism'

By Robert P. George
10/16/2008
The Witherspoon Institute (www.thepublicdiscourse.com/)

Sen.Obama's views on life issues ranging from abortion to embryonic stem cell research mark him as not merely a pro-choice politician, but rather as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.

Justice Scalia admires an icon of Elijah the Prophet presented to senior editor Robert P. George at a Touchstone-sponsored dinner in Washington D.C. on May 3rd of last year honoring Dr. George for his achievement in service to the nation and the church.

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

PRINCETON, N.J. (Witherspoon Institute) - Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals-even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals - who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.

What is going on here?

I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as ''pro-abortion'' rather than ''pro-choice.''

According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.

The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people - Thomas Jefferson was one - reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.

Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as ''pro-choice''? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were ''personally opposed'' to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were ''unnecessary,'' or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said ''Against slavery? Don't own one.'' We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.

Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being ''pro-abortion'' and being ''pro-choice.'' Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called ''pro-choice,'' then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.

The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, ''forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead.'' In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry ...

1 | 2 | 3 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 88 Comments

Cheryl O'Brien Huber
4 years ago
"she does not have to live with a decision that may have haunted her for the rest of her life" quote: Hopes n Hats
Once a choice is made, it's too late to take it back!
Obama's stance on choice is detrimental to our cause for life. They think they can make a difference through education.
Bunk!
Eamon Hatley-Smith
4 years ago
Some US government accepted definitions of terrorism:

The term terrorism means premeditated, politically motivated political violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. United States Code, s. 2656f(d)
OR
The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Well known writers on terrorism emphasize consensus in these definitions with similar themes:

A method of combat in which the victims serve as symbolic targets. Violent actors are able to produce a chronic state of fear by using violence outside the realm of normative behaviour. This produces an audience beyond the immediate victim and results in a change of public attitudes and actions. (White, 2002).

The illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective by
targeting innocent people. Walter Laqueur, 1987).

Symbolic acts of violence, intended to communicate a political
message to watching audiences. (Martha Crenshaw, 1983).

The systematic use of murder and destruction and the use of murder and destruction in order to terror individuals, groups and communities or governments into conceding to the terrorists political demands. (Paul Wilkinson, 1977).

A symbolic act designed to influence political behaviour by
extra normal means, entailing the use or threat of violence.
(Thornton, 1964).

Arguably all indicitive of recent 'extreme abortion' policy in several countries globally.

References:
Crenshaw, Martha (ed). 1983, Terrorism, Legitimacy and Power, Wesleyan University Press.

Laqueur, Walter, 1987. The Age of Terrorism, Little Brown.

Thornton, T.P. 1964, "Terror as a weapon of political agitation", in H. Eckstein (ed) Internal War, Collier-Macmillan.

Wardlaw, Grant.1982, Political Terrorism, Theory, Tactics and Counter-measures, Cambridge University Press.

Wikinson, Paul. 1977, Terrorism and the Liberal State, Macmillan.
Eamon Hatley-Smith
4 years ago
Terrorism is difficult to define, however every definition can be applied to the violence directed toward a child in the womb. It can be strongly argued the recent �policy direction� in the Obama administration toward pre-natal individuals is �state sponsored terrorism�. Any reasonable examination reveals extremist ideology, which legitimizes killing children through morally illegitimate legislation (as if it could ever be legitimized).

State sponsored terrorism is not new and has been a concept well used in modern history, especially during the Cold War. Sadly, �now� the concept of state sponsored terrorism is legitimised in abortion, due to Obama.
In the words of Kenneth Waltz, no state or combination of states is an effective counterweight to the United States. This idea has now exacerbated, into a global problem, led by the US, evident in similar legislation which was passed in Victoria, Australia, October last year by the Brumby state government, arguably a litmus test for the Obama administration.

There may be a rapid increase in the �comprehensive doctrine� of 'state sponsored terror' hidden in 'pro-choice' rhetoric globally. The momentum seems unstoppable, as America is perceived as a beacon of �progress� to the world, and leads by example.
A.Q
4 years ago
"What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection." The human being, both in America and in the rest of the world appears to be rather important in Obama's new Health Care and Energy Plans. He is currently fighting Republicans so he can put some money into taking care of people. Pro-war McCain preferred to put more taxpayers money into taking lives in Irag etc. I honestly think that for many Catholics the abortion issue is much less a question of faith and more an excuse to oppose some other financial policies.
David Guerzini
4 years ago
President Obama was consistent in his deference to women's perogatives when he let Nancy Pelosi's grandstanding gang write the bail out/stimulous bill. Always looking to avoid the consequences of one's actions and fix it so to speak when there is no fix except a change in behavior. Confusing carte blanche freedom with liberty will always encourage self indulgence and interests instead of "...life, liberty and..." and ANOTHER'S, otherwise denied by death,"... pursuit of happines". He tries to accomodate most or all without the discernment to see guile in others and contend for substantive on-the-mark items without wavering originating from his own chair as any good executive does. So much for his fuzzy wuzzy style only rhetoric and polemics. This is change? This generates hope? This is not leadership. Maybe Hillary can straighten him out.
Bill
4 years ago
I supported Obama in the election and am Pro-Choice. I know that abortion is wrong, yet I still think the government shouldn't make laws against it. It wouldn't justify anything if they were to make abortion illegal. Women still would probably try to have abortions if it were illegal. It would make things worse for woman's rights to her own health care. I still remain on the side of life and think it's wrong to have an abortion, yet think the government would be oppressive if they were to outlaw abortion.
Paul
4 years ago
I agree with Dalton. I pray that we all realize that refusing the gentle instruction of our Lord to enter our heart is pure foolishness. It is like driving around town ignoring all the traffic signals and signs--a recipe for disaster.
Joseph A. Gannon
4 years ago
The so called right to life group never seem to protest the war in Iraq. Is that not a right to life issue?
rachel
4 years ago
Lets keep praying for the unborn, for those babies left a side to die with out assistance and for those sucked out at 7 months even at 9 months, for all of the embryons, fetus, babies.
Dalton
4 years ago
It's all very simple. If you are Catholic, and not just in name only; but in studies of the teachings and Magisterium (teaching office of the Church) instituted by Jesus Christ to Peter (Matt.16:18-20);then you know the truth and have no excuse. If you know the truth, and deny it by heresy,or by being an apostate; then if you die in a state of Mortal Sin, then you will go to Hell for all eternity. That means you will NOT see the vision of Christ,(EVER) His Mother, all the Saints and Angels; your loved ones who have passed on and hopefully have made it to Heaven. This is not my opinion. This is fact as stated by Christ Himself in the Bible, and through the teachings of the Catholic Church, His visible body on Earth. You can heed this warning ,or not; Your Choice. Please make the right one. Your Eternity depends on it...

Prev12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment