President Obama stepped to the microphone last week to deliver a commencement address to the graduates of Notre Dame in the wake of stirring controversy regarding his position and decisions regarding human life in the womb. In his speech he praised Father Jenkins, the president of the school for setting an example as one who is participating in “honest, thoughtful dialogue”. The remainder of the speech was a call “to live together as one human family” with an “open heart, open mind, and fair minded words.”
His speech was a lesson on can’t we just all get along in a postmodern world, or is it post-post modern, I can’t keep up. His speech focused on the fact that “we must find a way to live together as one human family”. He admitted that this is not easy because “part of our problem lies in the imperfections of man” which he referred to as “rooted in original sin”. He also said the obstacles to our one global family lies in the fact that we “seek advantage over one another”, live with “outworn prejudices and fear”, seek “immediate self interest and crass materialism”, “the strong dominating the weak”, and “the wealthy and powerful justify their lifestyles in the face of poverty and injustice.” And of course his answer is that all these well educated graduates have wrestled with these wrongs and now they can in their own ways seek to right the wrongs to help us become on big happy family.
It was inevitable that President Obama would talk about abortion in this speech. However in his Obamaesque delivery he only talked about how we talk about abortion. He used the issue of abortion to call the graduates to be active in addressing issues like abortion with their lives with an open heart, open mind and fair minded words. Therefore, Obama faintly referred to his position on abortion by using an example (“one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope”).of how he decided to change his rhetoric on a web site where an aid had posted a line about Obama’s stance against “right wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to chose.” In the speech he says that a pro-life democrat had emailed him and was upset with him, not because of his position on abortion, but because of his narrow rhetoric. Obama admits that he did not change his position but only his words. This example he uses to urge the graduates on how to hold your positions, be active for what you believe is right and remain open and fair minded to your opponents. This is his answer for finding a way to live together as one human family. He even used some positive talking points in his speech to urge a concerted effort to reduce the numbers of women seeking abortions by “reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women." In this one statement there is something everyone can agree on and applaud. But he is still only talking about talking about abortion.
If he sees through the lenses of “sound science” that a womb is only a holding ground for a mass of stem cells then the almighty woman under the guise of “sound ethics” can chose to do with those cells whatever she determines is right. But if those cells in the womb are a baby and the creative work of the Almighty God to make a son or a daughter for his own glory that lasts forever then “clear ethics” says to do with that child whatever the woman wants is sin, and to take that child’s life through abortion is murder. But this kind of rhetoric cannot be delivered with a smile, flattering words, and a line to sell another book. President Obama is calling for human civility while in the United States this year there will be over 1.3 million children killed through abortion. Can we call it civil to keep legally killing children and is this the way to “live together as one human family” while the politically strong dominate the weak unborn without a voice, while they call on their constituents practice an open heart, open mind and fair minded words? The President did not expose his moral position and so kept himself in a safe political position, while millions of babies lie in a vulnerable position unprotected from the power of “freedom of choice”.
No comments:
Post a Comment