Obama On Faith
Christianity Today is on a roll. Here’s a good Q&A session on faith with Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Those with reservations over his stance on abortion should pay special attention to page 2 of the interview to see what, if any, views that you may hold in common.
Also, Beliefnet has one as well.
22 Comments
Comments are closed.
Jeff Slater
I do agree with him that “we should be discouraging unwanted pregnancies, that we should encourage adoption wherever possible.”
But I take issue with him when he says, “Our goal should be to make abortion less common.” Why? If the fetus is not a human being, then abortion is no different than having a boil lanced or a mole removed. Why should it be limited? It sounds a lot like Bill Clinton’s ridiculous statement that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.”
However, if the fetus is a human being knit together by God with a beating heart and the ability to experience pain — then abortion should not be limited. It should be stopped.
I really think he’s doing his best to pander to pro-life Christians. The fact is, if he is elected President, he will do everything within his power to remove any and all restrictions on abortion, he will do everything he can to remove parental notification laws, he will work to provide federal funding for abortions (so that we all get to pay for the killing of babies), and he will appoint Supreme Court Justices who agree with Roe v. Wade.
I wish they would have asked him some tougher questions, instead of lobbing a few softballs his way. I would like to him to state that he would vote for a partial-birth abortion ban if it included an exception for the health of the mother. I don’t believe he would do it.
doublevision
You know there are problems with how we as a society view abortion. Mr. Slater makes some interesting comments. The big question is not with a fetus but lies in the embryo itself and when is a life a life. It seems that many feel abortion is murder because it is taking the life of an individual whether it is a formed fetus or an embryo and most of those individuals oppose morning after pills and any form of abortion. The problem with that position is that when it comes to a couple in their local congregation they are OK with them seeking help to have a baby due to fertility problems. Then once the couple has a baby and the many fertilized eggs that are not used are destroyed. No one stands up and says anything because how could one not be for a couple having a child. In fact many of these embryos are destroyed and could be used for stem cell research. To my knowledge, the Roman Catholic church is the only church which opposes abortion and artificial fertilization methods and are consistent with their beliefs. Most churches never even address these gray areas of abortion with their members or ever discuss them because they are too involved in the cause to restrict abortion. I am one who would like to see abortions reduced or even eliminated but have real questions about issues like this and how do we address them. Of course if there were no abortions there would be more adoptions available to these couples. But where do we draw the line??? Tough questions no doubt. Political candidates never get into this either.
doublevision
I guess I am really concerned about why a woman with an unwanted pregnancy who has an abortion is told she is killing a baby but a woman who wants to have children will destroy many more embryos and that act is not called killing because she is doing it to have children. Some would argue because the embryo has never been implanted but these same people opposed the morning after pill because it stopped the implantation.
Another inconsistency is if a pregnant lady walks into a bank and is shot and killed by a robber. The robber is tried for double murder in many states. However if she is not shot and leaves the bank and has an abortion she is not tried for murder.
Anyhow, just some questions I ponder from time to time when the rhetoric gets going.
JRB
JS said, “The fact is, if he is elected President, he will do everything within his power to remove any and all restrictions on abortion, he will do everything he can to remove parental notification laws, he will work to provide federal funding for abortions (so that we all get to pay for the killing of babies), and he will appoint Supreme Court Justices who agree with Roe v. Wade.”
JRB says, that is not the fact, and if you are going to say that it’s a fact, then I implore to substantiate it. As DV identifies, this is not a zero-sum game, and the options, problems and solutions exist on a spectrum with a thousand points in between. Roe v. Wade is a red herring to the debate, and a fixation on that case, by both sides, is a convenient fiction to avoid real solutions to much more complex problems.
From this law prof’s point of view, this issue is not about privacy, but about equal protection and due process, which invoke very different analyses. Privacy and the root of Roe is the wrong conversation, and it keeps us from making any headway.
Jeff Slater
Perhaps I should have said, “I strongly believe if he is elected President…..”
But I have confidence in my predictions because of his voting record and statements he has made. What makes you think he will not do those things?
Mike the Eyeguy
Jeff,
If I’m reading you correctly, you seem to predict with a great deal of confidence that an Obama presidency will result in a great liberalization of abortion laws over what currently exists and that abortion will be even more unfettered than it is now. You also imply, I believe, that Sen Obama could be counted among those who would glibly and breezily deem abortion in the same class as removing a mole.
Yet, when I read Sen Obama’s words in the CT article, I do not find any words there which support such a dreadful scenario. In fact, quite the opposite. To wit, quotes such as “I do think that those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren’t expressing the full reality of it,” as well as his statement regarding a woman’s choice “with significant constraints.”
I would remind you that these are also, as you say, “statements that he has made.” Why the a priori assumption that he is “up to no good” simply because he disagrees with your position? Wouldn’t it be better to begin a discussion with a presumption of good faith, especially toward a fellow brother in Christ (ah, but there’s another potentially sticky wicket for some, eh?)?
I think you give him–or any candidate for that matter–far too much credit in terms of the impact that they will have over the rate of abortions in this country. As my favorite conservative commentator Barry Farber (a Jew and a gentleman–unlike the Gentile hacks Limbaugh and Hannity) said some years back, the battle now will not be won in the courts but in the hearts and minds of the people. And the tension created by passionate advocacy on both sides of this debate is far too great for one man-or woman–to have a significant impact one way or the other.
And judging from the fall in the abortion rates and pro-life sentiment occurring in more and more corners of our culture–including, of all places, Hollywood–progress is being made.
I wish you the best in finding a candidate who will “deliver the goods” when it comes to ending abortion as we know it.
Mike the Eyeguy
DV–I appreciate your input and your examples sure show how truly difficult it is to consistently practice a “pro-life” ethic in all the various sticky wickets that we encounter.
Indeed, the RC Church has been the most consistent over time with regard to abortion and other life issues. However, they have had their inconsistencies too (see the abuses of The Crusades, Inquisition and the religious wars of Europe for starters). Also, several popes and renowned theologians, such as Augustine and Aquinas (both Saints) have held views on the personhood of the fetus that are not entirely consistent with current church teaching. And while everyone’s understanding of this, I think, has been drastically altered by what we have learned about early human development through modern science, reasonable people of good faith still somehow manage to come out on different sides of this issue.
As Pope John Paul II so ably put it, “The church never ceases from doing penance.” Everyone, it seems, is in dire need of grace.
Mike the Eyeguy
JRB–
I would be very interested in hearing some amplification of your comment about Roe v. Wade being a “red herring.” Also, with your legal expertise, what do you see taking place should RvW someday fall? Do you agree with Andrew Sullivan that after the states have their say, that there would not be a major change in abortion laws as we know it, or at the most, only a slight move toward more restriction (I think that’s his position, straighten me out if it’s not)?
Mike the Eyeguy
I hate writing post-length comments, but you gotta do what you gotta do. Also, I can’t respond during the day to these. I have to follow certain rules restricting political discussion while at work.
Jeff Slater
Mike —
You’ve misunderstood me. I did not say that Obama regards abortion in the same class as removing a mole. My point was that if the fetus is not a person, there should be no talk of “making abortion less common” as Obama says. If the fetus is not a person, it is just a tissue mass (like a mole, or an appendix). If a fetus is not a person, his statement makes no sense (other than to make him appear to be caring and compassionate).
But if the fetus is indeed a person, he or she should be protected from those who would seek to end his or her life.
Again, I firmly believe that if Obama is elected President, he will do everything within his power to remove any and all restrictions on abortion, he will do everything he can to remove parental notification laws, he will work to provide federal funding for abortions, and he will appoint Supreme Court Justices who agree with Roe v. Wade.
Perhaps you or JRB can tell me why you think he will not do what I predict.
Mike the Eyeguy
I don’t think I misunderstood you at all. You are, of course, trying to reduce a very complex and nuanced debate which religious teachers and philosophers–much smarter than either you or me– have wrestled with for many millennia into a simple syllogism. Nice try.
Of course he recognizes that the fetus is more than a lump of tissue, and given that, “making abortion less common” would seem to be consistent and logical, whether you believed the fetus was a full “person” with all rights or whether you believed the fetus was a developing human being whose “personhood” was more ill-defined and did not trump that of the mother (probably closer to his view).
As to why I don’t believe he will drastically change the face of the abortion scene, I thought I did explain that.
Let me try again. Simply put, even if he really, really, really more than anything else in the whole wide world wanted to, as you say, “do everything within his power to remove any and all restrictions on abortion” (a highly dubious assertion in my opinion) he wouldn’t be able to.
Why? Because the American people wouldn’t let him–it’s not what they want. The battle lines are drawn and the trenches are dug. The abortion scene is most likely not going to change that much regardless of who occupies the Oval Office.
But I have to wonder at the end of the day (and I alluded to this in an earlier post): If Sen. Obama was a Republican, had a less funny sounding name, was a few pounds heavier, and was a war hero with 4 stars on his shoulders, would evangelicals vote for him?
I think I know the answer to that one.
JRB
There are two questions on the table.
First, why do I think Obama will not “do everything in his power to remove any and all restrictions on abortion,” etc.?
As MTEG pointed out, the first reason is because he doesn’t say so, and in the CT article and the beliefnet.com article, he says otherwise. Nothing in his platform or policy statements makes any kind of suggestion that he would be a pro-abortion radical. In fact, he says that he is not pro-abortion, because no one is. He said that he voted against the late-term abortion ban because it did not have a provision for protecting the life of the mother, which is at least a very reasonable discussion to have. He has said or done nothing of which I’m aware to support the conclusion you suggest; what do you have?
Next, he wouldn’t do such a thing because it wouldn’t be politically expedient, even if he were so inclined. A majority of Americans do not think that abortion should be always illegal or always legal, most oppose abortion in principle but accept it, especially in instances of rape, incest or the health and life of the mother. That’s the center, and Obama is running to the center.
He opposed abortion, as we all do, but he is in favor of legal choice, in a broader sense than I am, by the way, but the rest of the policies he suggest are surely pro-life and meant to reduce abortions.
Why do you think he’s such a radical?
JRB
Why is Roe v. Wade a red herring?
As with all but a few appellate cases, RvW does not stand alone but inherits and applies precedent and sends the theory on down the line to cases to come. The jurisprudence, the legal theory, of Roe is not a thorough-going debate on abortion but is really a discussion of the right to privacy, which exists, according to the Court (and me) in the penumbras or shadows or between the lines of the Constitution. It derives this idea from previous cases, and later cases advance and refine the idea in other contexts and controversies. Roe addresses abortion but is about privacy.
(For the moment, let me say, I think abortion is not rightly a privacy issue, and I do think Roe is a bad decision on the merits, but not because of privacy but because of the fact finding.)
In any event, Roe is one part of a puzzle, and removing it or overturning it would not cause a cascade of toppling abortion laws and policies. Plenty of cases have followed or would than would not depend on Roe for their findings.
Abortion activists on both sides, but especially the pro-life activists, have a fixation on this one case, which they regard as a great loss and injustice, without realizing that after 35 years, overturning one case is not going to eviscerate a legal theory. These things develop slowly, and they will undevelop slowly.
If anti-abortion activists were serious about reducing and eliminating abortions, they would change the debate, from privacy, which they lost and will continue to loose, to another legal theory. They also would not call for this to be a state issue. Making this a state issue would yield inconsistent and contrary results state by state and only increase the marketing, not the rates. This would be like Harding students driving out of White County for alcohol, for example.
I think the operative legal issues, for a better challenge against the status quo, is a debate about civil rights, even the competing civil rights of yet-born children, mothers and fathers. If this is framed as an equal protection issue, first in the 5th Amendment, then extended to the states with the 14th Amendment, we would then talk about the personhood of a fetus, vis a vis, the rights and imposition of a mother. Without a doubt, these are deeply complex issues where life and control over one’s own body and organs intersect, and they get harder and harder when the facts involve minor mothers, rape victims, incest victims, domestic violence victims and mothers whose lives are threatened by their pregnancies. This is not even to mention all the things Double Vision discussed above.
So, in short, overturning or supporting Roe has little to do with today’s struggle, and to change the entrenched debate would require a new legal theory, because the right to privacy is here to say, as it should be.
Perhaps you will say that I’m just trying to lawyer the issue and confuse what should be a crystal clear moral issue. I’m not. I think this is genuinely complex, and the activists on either side fail to recognize the complexity.
Mike the Eyeguy
Thanks professor. Your comments were at first held up in moderation (probably too many big fancy lawyer words :-)) but now they are unleashed for all the world to read.
Jeff Slater
1. 100% ratings from pro-choice groups during his tenure in the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate.
2. Honorary chair of Planned Parenthood of Chicago Area’s Roe v. Wade celebration.
3. Only U.S. Senator who supported a fundraising initiative to defeat a proposed abortion ban in South Dakota.
4. Obama voted against a measure designed to protect what supporters termed live babies born during abortion procedures.
5. Obama has received a 0% rating from the National Right To Life Committee.
6. Twice, Obama voted against bills prohibiting tax funding of abortions.
7. He has consistently voted against parental notification laws.
What bothers me most about Obama is that he’s trying to present himself as some kind of New Democrat (sounds familiar — remember 1992?). And apparently many people are buying into it. But the record shows that he is just a smooth-talking liberal in the mold of George McGovern and Teddy Kennedy.
JRB
I think we’ve reached the end of productivity and fruit-bearing, having had our say, rather respectfully too I might add.
Good gentlemen and brothers, I bid you farewell with love and blessings until another thread and another post.
May God bless us all, and may we all submit to His will, vision and transformation. May His grace cover us when we all fail.
Cheers.
Mike the Eyeguy
Amen.
doublevision
Yikes Mike-glad you did not mention Calvin burning the witches-I happen to like Obama and what he says on other issues that concern me in today’s world-I like what Huckabee says on the issue of abortion-To summarize- conservatives need to show more care and concern about all children whether they are in the womb or out in the world.
I still think it is a great time in American politics-we have a mormon, a woman, and an african american vying strongly to become president. Other than the fact that it takes money to run and Romney shows that-it does seem to support our childhood dreams that anyone can become president if they have the desire. None of the three would have had a chance 15-20 years ago and maybe not even 5-10 years ago. Look how far the USA has come-we should all celebrate.
Mike the Eyeguy
Amen again.
Mike the Eyeguy
“Yikes Mike-glad you did not mention Calvin burning the witches”
DV, you old Presbyterian you, now I get it!
A little slow on the uptake sometimes. Here it is, the overdue chuckle:
Heh.
tarwater
Eyeguy,
Would you give your opinion on this open letter to Anne Rice by Professor Robert George? I think it strikes to heart of what is at stake.
And with all due respect I think Dr. George a more qualified voice than JRB. No offense meant to the esteemed JRB.
http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2007/12/17/an-unrequited-letter-to-anne-rice/
Of course you may defer, but I do think that having the discussion of what we as Christians should hold most important in our roles as citizens of this great land is highly profitable. If what he advocates is not on target then what supersedes it and why?
I of course don’t think that the Faith is a purely private matter or that we should keep silent in the Public Square or that we do not recourse to natural law and reason in these matters. But if this is a holocaust it deserves our utmost determination and priority, yes, or no? If it isn’t a holocaust, how so?
Regards
Mike the Eyeguy
tw,
First off, if you knew how well The Jones School of Law at Faulkner University did at that legal competition in Chicago last year, you wouldn’t have said that about JRB. 🙂 Frankly, I learned more about R v W–and what would/should happen if it’s overturned–from JRB than I did from Professor George’s letter. Seems to me that JRB is a mighty fine law professor himself.
I enjoyed reading both Ms. Rice’s post and Professor’s George’s letter. I appreciated the “soft voice” with which they spoke. They both argue with reason and passion, yet they both end up in different places–and so it goes. And goes. And goes.
The very compelling “facts of embryogenesis” intersect–messily–with the “facts of life” one of which, as Ms Rice points out, is the issue of “how Americans could be forced to have children” they they don’t want to bear. Professor George argues with passion for the rights of the unborn, but he doesn’t provide any real-life, pragmatic ideas that answer Ms. Rice’s concern.
Instead, he has his sights set on overturning R v W, but as JRB has ably argued, that will take us down a different path entirely with most likely little relative change in the number of abortions performed once the states have their say.
I also must say that when Professor George says “We should certainly not be tying ourselves to those who see it (abortion) as no injustice at all” he grossly caricatures many of my Democratic friends who are pro-life and who are trying–“credibly” I feel–to address many of the social concerns that feed this problem. He demonizes in a “soft voice,” but he demonizes nonetheless. Hardly constructive.
Is it a holocaust like The Holocaust? Is the abortion of a fetus–and let us say it is a person–the same as the killing of a walking, breathing, thinking person who knows what it is to love and to fear death?
God knows. I see “through a mirror dimly.”
That should do it. There is enough good material for the record should someone want to look over it. This post is officially closed.
tw, you know where to find me. See you at lunch.