Obama Urges Compromise on Abortion; Palin Slams Notre Dame
During his commencement speech at the Catholic Notre Dame school, President Barack Obama called for understanding, tolerance and open-minded dialogue about abortion. Both sides of the debate, he said, have to be tolerant towards differing points of view.
That is easy to say for a man who does not understand those who truly believe that abortion is murder. Or, like Governor Mike Huckabee put it, as reprehensible as slavery. Should opponents of slavery have treated proponents with the greatest amount of respect, as if both sides were equally moral?
As Hot Air puts it, Obama basically tells these people they should be “open-minded about child murder.”
Meanwhile, Governor Sarah Palin lashed out at Notre Dame for inviting Obama to deliver the commencement address and to award him an honorary degree.
“My favorite grandpa, Clem James Sheeran, was Catholic. Irish to the core, his favorite place (other than church) was Notre Dame. I can’t imagine what he would think as the university recognizes someone who contradicts the core values of the Catholic faith by promoting an anti-life agenda. As we learned today, our nation is more pro-life than ever before; it is a very important time to strengthen the message that every baby is created for good purpose and has the potential to make this world a better place,” she wrote an in email quoted by, again, Hot Air.
Obama is clearly trying to throw the abortion debate into the dustbin of history. He wants to create ‘understanding’ from the other side, while he does his best to pursue a radical a pro-choice agenda as possible; as he has done throughout his career in politics.
Will Catholics specifically and pro-lifers in general fall for it?
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
you missed the point all together.
The understanding that Obama was calling for was that a debate could be had without resorting to calling each other names. He was pushing each side to have a respectful debate. Dehumanizing the other side does not move a conflict to a solution it pushes each side farther extreme. A respectful debate on the issue can lead to small steps both sides can agree on that will reduce the number of performed abortions which both sides can agree is a good thing.
Obviously Palin did not listen to his speech.
“That is easy to say for a man who does not understand those who truly believe that abortion is murder.”
And the above is easy to say for a man who apparently doesn’t believe that the meaning and implications of an abortion ban are worthy of being weighed against the factors your side cares about.
“Should opponents of slavery have treated proponents with the greatest amount of respect, as if both sides were equally moral?”
So Prejean is the sufferer of an uncivil backlash from the oppressive thought police but Obama deserves no good faith for daring to opt for safe, legal and rare with increased focus on adoption. Way to impress the undecided.
“As Hot Air puts it, Obama basically tells these people they should be “open-minded about child murder.””
Well, when you put it that way. Also, spending money on national security is taking money away from research into how to stop an impending asteroid impact. You’ve doomed humanity, security conservatives!
“I can’t imagine what he would think as the university recognizes someone who contradicts the core values of the Catholic faith by promoting an anti-life agenda.”
I can’t imagine what he would think about the politicization of his religion either.
” As we learned today, our nation is more pro-life than ever before; it is a very important time to strengthen the message that every baby is created for good purpose and has the potential to make this world a better place”
So let us make sure that abortions are available easily and that young men and women learn about sex and the many aspects of it so that no fetus can turn into a baby before the abortion. Let’s actually assume that rather than talking about a ban vs. the status quo we can look into what human personhood requires, how we can make pregnant women aware of the choices and how we can make sure women are aware of their bodies to the point where they can terminate a pregnancy before it approaches a gray area. Force both sides to work to neutrally and respectfully approach these women rather than treat them as a battlefield that can be a projective surface for a bunch of narratives. Let gay people adopt and increase the number of possible families that would receive a baby. Let’s adjust the slides and the knobs rather than fight over the power button.
“He wants to create ‘understanding’ from the other side”
It’s never enough, is it? Take your hands off the investigations debate and you can still be accused of endangering Americans by default. Be a pro-abortion president and you still can’t shift the discussion away from both sides’ pipe-dreams towards compromise in the real world. In the same sense, Huntsman could not have been selected to rejuvenate the GOP due to his heresy regarding gay rights (I am aware that this site does not consider that issue to be as contestable as abortion), not to mention the insincere smiles his mormonism would inspire. Lol big tent.
Tim, a respectful debate requires not only refraining from namecalling, but also showing through one’s actions that one respects the people on the other side of the debate. Obama has shown no such respect because every action he’s taken on abortion has been to the extreme ‘abortion rights’ side. He even refused to support legislation in Illinois which would have protected against infanticide when babies were born alive as a result of botched abortions- and his stated reason for his opposition was that there was no need for such a law and that the proponents of it were demagoguing by suggesting that doctors might not give medical care to babies in that situation. This was despite the testimony of a nurse who’d been forced to hold a dying infant to whom the doctors refused to give life supporting care (and we now know that babies have similarly been left to die in other states.)
If Obama is serious about having a respectful debate, he owes people on the prolife side an apology and he needs to show that he has seriously reconsidered the need to weigh the right to life against the right to an abortion.
RuDee- one can listen to Obama’s speech and then see the disconnect between his words and actions. Just words….
Palin knows what Obama is saying, he has said it for years. He was the guy here in Illinois that spear headed opposition to stopping partial birth abortion. He also was the point man for non parental notification, and the law that would forbid any life saving help for a baby that was accidentally delivered during a partial birth abortion. He is just doing his best double speak again. He is not honest.
Christine, I confess I don’t understand your standard. You’re really saying that the only way to be respectful in a debate is to actually compromise one’s views? I don’t think that makes sense. Respectfulness might require giving a serious and non-pejorative response to contrary views, but I don’t think it requires actually embracing contrary views. That is the standard demanded by the left (e.g. the only time they think Republicans are being “moderate” is when the Republicans embrace the exact issue positions of liberals, no deviations or dissent allowed) and I think that is bunk.
Respect to me requires being honest about what the other side’s views are (i.e. not exaggerating, distorting, or caricaturing them) and responding to those views with the presumption that those who hold them are sincere and principled. I don’t think it requires actually changing one’s own sincere views to accommodate contrary views.
The anti-abortion extremist are no different than Islamic extremist. They refuse to follow the laws of the land they would rather follow the laws of “God”. Birth is the litmus test for life. Until you are born and breathing in this world you are not considered alive. People need to stop lying to themselves.
Jason, what I’m particularly referring to was his reason for taking the extreme stance of denying protection for infants born alive in abortions- part of his rationale was that he felt the introduction of the bill was demagoguing on the part of the prolifers rather than an attempt to address a legitimate problem. That’s the disrespect that I’m referring to- accusing one’s opponent of being disingenuous.
Also, Jason, as greg points out, Obama has only appointed people who hold fairly extreme prochoice positions to the posts that will deal with abortion. If he is serious about open debate, shouldn’t he have someone representing the other side of the issue at least to some extent in his administration?
Lol whut. Huge slam on eight-month old infants straight out of nowhere.
Come on. Try to reconsider. I know that you are wrong and I also know you can’t help any cause by depicting things the way you do. Saying human life that deserves protection begins at independent post-natal breathing is like saying it begins at conception.
Garland, you might be surprised to learn that you are to the right of some US abortion rights advocates, including Obama (he wasn’t even comfortable with birth and vital signs being the defining point, because that would override the doctor’s judgement that the fetus wasn’t viable.
I’m pro-life and yet I, to a degree, agree with the President that if we begin with terms such as “murder” we can’t get any further. Now having said that, I believe he needs to be far more introspective. When he gives glib answers such as “above my pay grade” but feels it was within his pay grade to decide he needed to actively defeat the provision in the Illinois partial birth bill that allowed resuscitation in the case of a live birth, that suggested an intent to “smooth over” with words his clear and, dare I say it, extreme views on abortion.
The two must go hand in hand for any open discussion: “non-fighting” words and much introspection
However, when all is said and done the mistake lies with Notre Dame.
While Sarah Palin has been pro-life all of her political career I fear she’s allowing that stance to tightly define who she is.
What people don’t understand about Sarah Palin is that she is a Constitutionalist, which is to say believes governing under the rule of law, separating one’s personal beliefs and the state. The left says she will make abortion illegal. Wrong. Her call is to return the legislation of abortion to where the Constitution says it should be, in each individual state. Ditto gay marriage. And Americans should have the freedom to live in whatever state they want.
What really set her off–as well as a number of conservative Democrats–was Obama re-instituting partial-birth abortion and pushing for federal funding of it. As a pro-choice person myself, in this day and age I can help but wonder what circumstances would call for a seventh or eight month termination. We DELIVER seventh month babies as premies all the time, so how can this not be murder? I don’t pretend to know but I can’t pretend to like partial-birth abortion. With the morning-after pill I’m having trouble with after the first ten weeks.
Perhaps, Christine. But perhaps it is also true that those who want to perceive themselves as being disrespected will almost always succeed.
I don’t think Obama could ever do anything to appease those who are purists in opposition to him on any issue just as I don’t think that Republicans could do anything to appease those who have gotten years’ worth of emotional satisfaction from hating everything Republicans say or do. But the difference in the way he personally engages in debate and expresses disagreement does seem to me qualitatively different from that we have grown to expect from real left-wing extremists. Compare for example the way Obama characterizes those that disagree with him versus the way that Pelosi or Barney Frank or our own commenter Garland does so — there is definitely more respect from Obama compared to what we could have, even if that doesn’t translate into his conceding any actual power over policy.
Perhaps it is worthwhile to recognize and respect a change in tone as somewhat valuable in and of itself rather than constantly moving the goalposts further back in some kind of search for concessions. The kind of “respect” you are seeking may be more of a theoretical maximum than a starting point.
obviously, palin did listen very closely to obama’s speech, as well as all his other pronouncements on abortion, and studied his voting record even more closely. actions speak louder than words, especially where obama is concerned.
dennisintn
Well, quite frankly, Jason, what you see as a desirable feature in the way Obama presents himself (moderate in tone, would be one way to describe it) is more and more to me seeming like a very well contrived sleight of hand trick. Listen to his rhetoric and he sounds so reasonable that it’s impossible for some people to believe that he’s an extremist, and yet when you examine what he actually decides on policy it’s as extreme as it can get (on this issue, and pretty far left on some other issues as well.)
So, I just don’t buy it. I realize that what you say is true as well- if he were more of a centrist but leaned prochoice like a typical Democrat on abortion, he’d still be unable to gain trust from ardent prolifers. But I don’t think its fair to overlook the fact that he actually IS an extremist on abortion rights.
Besides, Jason, the situation I referred to regarding the Illinois born alive bill was a precise violation of the principle you described here:
Even Factcheck.org couldn’t deny that he had to dissemble on his explanation of his opposition to the various bills that reached the Senate floor, yet he never retracted his claim that his oppponents were lying about what he’d said and done.
Yes, Christine. I agree that his performance on both the vote and explaining it was poor. But where I think we differ is in how much impact to put on that. It appears that you view it as a permanent and absolute stain that could only be remedied by a full-scale retreat on the abortion issue including ceding at least some policy control. I am prepared to accept and praise more incremental steps, as I think absolute or purist demands are a recipe for failure.
I also might be prone to give more of a pass on the abortion issue specifically because of all the abusive and uncivil rhetoric I see from the anti-abortion extremists, including numerous comments on this thread that I have had to delete because of their over-the-top incivility and abusiveness. It is tough for me to get upset about Obama’s rather mild offense against civility on the abortion issue a decade ago when I am dealing with gross incivility from the other side right here today.
@Tim
I think so too. He was simply stating that the protesters were interrupting the graduation ceremony and everyone should begin to get along.
This video I found covers the different perspectives on the story: http://www.newsy.com/videos/commencement_controversy/
Jason, I fail to see how an expectation of something other than the most extreme abortion rights policy that we’ve ever had in the White House is asking Obama to make a ‘full scale retreat on the abortion issue.’
It’s the combination of his extreme stance (giving not the slightest bit of acceptance of rights for the fetus, even after it becomes what anyone would consider a live infant) and his disingenuous and shifting explanation of those votes, that make it impossible for me to believe that he wants an actual dialogue. What is the point of the debate if his position is locked into the most extreme proabortion stance possible? It’s quite obvious that he calls for moderation in tone and seeking common ground only because that’s what he needs to do to make his policies palatable to centrists who listen to his words and don’t pay that much attention to the actual policies.
Honestly, Jason, I find it highly irritating that you ignore the extremity of his positions and instead nag me for not buying his rhetoric. Surely you can accept that even if you don’t agree with me, there’s reason for people who disagree with his policies on this issue to suspect that the words are hollow and meant to grease his political support instead of genuinely changing the dialogue (particularly since he’s already spoken words which turned out to be deceptive about his true motivations.) If, over time, he pursues policies which would truly represent some common ground (some meaningful support for crisis pregancies and for adoption, for instance, to match the ridiculous level of public support enjoyed by Planned Parenthood, for instance) then I will give credit where due- but so far it’s all words and then actions which run contrary to the words.
So it seems to me that both your stances are actually similar, just viewed in opposite directions. Jason is upset over the rhetoric of extreme anti-abortionists and you’re upset over Obama’s policy history on the issue.
If only the anti-abortionists would moderate their rhetoric and if only Obama would moderate his policies would you be more palatable to each other on this.
I know I might not be a model blogger on this issue, but I think my own position is moderate enough. I’m personally against it, but I’ve stated I’m skeptical on even a 12 week border line for everyone else, and am definitely more in favor of adoption, keeping the baby, or using contraception in the first place.
But I won’t accept blanket statements that try to tell me that all abortion is murder. I do think there needs to be more open-minded debate with less demonizing and ridiculing.
Not exactly sure where that places me.
Well, you’re right to a degree, MM, but the thing is that I consider policy a lot more important than rhetoric because actions speak louder than words. I did explain one area where I think Obama could be consistent with his own stated views and yet show seriousness about respecting people on the other side of the debate. If he moves in that direction, then I’m certainly still not going to be a huge fan of his overall stance still, but I’ll give credit for progress toward helping women make the OTHER choice. As it is though, until someone with such an extremist history on policy makes some actual policy move, the words are completely meaningless.
Maybe for prochoicers you could better understand my feelings if you imagine a moderate speaking person in the White House who was radically prolife and was enacting policies that reflected that stance (appointing SCOTUS justices according to litmus test to overthrow Roe v. Wade, promoting constitutional amendment defining life beginning at conception, etc.) and at the same time was calmly and politely telling everyone that we should all just agree to disagree but move past our divisions. I mean come on, how many on the prochoice side would be happy that he wasn’t using harsh rhetoric?
Also, MM: I think where those views place you is squarely in the middle of American public opinion, but also among the mostly silent majority. The main reason we get such extremist rhetoric (and it comes from BOTH sides, even though we now have a spokesperson for abortion rights in the WH who doesn’t use that tone) is because the people who feel as you do just don’t speak up very often. I guess the reasons they don’t include the fact that some people are somewhat conflicted (having fairly strong anti-abortion sensibilities personally but also sympathizing with women who face unwanted pregnancy and not wanting to judge them), and as you mention, disgust with some of the extreme rhetoric. But it’s when centrists are quiet that the fringes get noisy.
One other thing about people with your views is that I find they aren’t always aware of the real stats regarding abortions. A lot of people who are more ambivalent seem to be unaware of the current situation being mainly of abortion on demand, with many women having repeat abortions as a form of birth control. If you haven’t looked at the stats, I’d encourage you to look into them and see if your views don’t change a bit in light of what is really going on.
I guess the one bright side to Obama’s stance on the issue is that it may be forcing people to look at what hasn’t really been examined in the past- and perhaps that underlies the shift toward more people now describing themselves as prolife.
hrmm
I’m not so much for Abortion as I am against laws that are clearly a matter between the person or the couple to come to peace with in their minds.
However, clearly the wrong spot for our Illustrious Spender-in-Chief to bring it up at. And why oh why didn’t the ACLU sue because of it.
CS: The problem is that whatever the issue, be it abortion, gay marriage, the war, whatever, the extremists tend to have the loudest voices. I think you know that. I do what I can here, but we’re admittedly small fry compared to the other voices. It would help if we were more often included in the major blog tracking directories such as Memorandum.
It’s not always true, though (which you point out). I certainly wouldn’t call people like Jason a silent majority (this is a compliment).
I think for the most part, centrists, moderates, whatever, are sick of being called a silent majority, the squishy center. There are more and more calling for centrist parties, for examples, however unlikely they are to form.
Those who support the killing of unborn children are going to writhe even more in hell when they see their victims in heaven, killed because of lust, envy, or worldly desires. There is absolutely no reason to terminate an unborn life. None.
God makes no mistakes.
@c3
c3, Regarding your comment “While Sarah Palin has been pro-life all of her political career I fear she’s allowing that stance to tightly define who she is.” Unfortunately there are some that only see this one issue. Yes by example Gov. Palin is pro-life, not just her political career but her whole life and speaks about the precious gift of life. And if you ask her about abortion she without “fear” will tell you she’s pro-life. And yes Pro Lifers support Gov. Palin. Yet if you go to her webpage, state of union address, PAC or Facebook page she seems to be all about ENERGY. An “all of the above” approach. Plus she seems to be for energy independence as well as renewable energy. She set the goal of 50% of electricity come from renewables by 2025, double Pres. Obama’s goal. Also I don’t think that mere conservation is the bridge to independent renewable energy. We need something to get us there. Should we wait for the development of renewables before we are energy independent? Gov. Palin want us to become energy independent with fossil fuels and renewables. If I had to pick only one issue to define Gov. Palin I would pick ENERGY! That’s the way I see it.