Sen. Obama gets flippant about abortion

For better or for worse—better, in my mind—I've paid as little attention to the presidential race as possible. But in skimming this Los Angeles Times' article about the Rick Warren Summit (which struck me and others as a bit, well, self-aggrandizing and problematic on the part of Warren; others, whose opinions I respect, disagree), this caught my attention:

At the Saddleback forum, Obama took credit for pushing the platform change, saying the nation's goal should be to reduce the number of abortions. While sidestepping the question of when a baby should get human rights, saying it was "above my pay grade," Obama reminded the audience that he supported some limits on late-term abortion.

"One of the things that I've always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then -- and you are consistent in that belief -- then I can't argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you," he said. "What I can do is say: Are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?"

The larger context of the "pay grade" remark makes it even more bothersome (from the Reuters blog):

“… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question  with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

Which means, I gather, that the only criteria that Sen. Obama will use and feels is within his "pay grade" is that of political currency and expedience. That is not only ridiculous, it clearly indicates the man's priorities when it comes to making decisions about the most important issues: life, conception, and the nature of the human person. (After all, if you don't think life is really that important, try living without it for a while. See what I mean?) Roger Kimball, editor of The New Criterion, described the Senator's comment as "an insulting and mendacious equivocation" and offered this short but excellent response.

Equally bad is the silly comment about "...if you believe that life begins at conception," since one doesn't have to be a theologian or a scientist to understand that every human life begins at conception. The debate over abortion is often about when human life is, well, really human—the sort of question that keeps sophists busy, politicians paid, and babies unsafe. Put another way, the real issue is usually obscured with the sort of nonsense offered by Obama. But, as Dr. Francis Beckwith, author of Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (Cambridge University Press, 2007), explained in a December 2007 interview with Ignatius Insight, those who are for life and the rights of the unborn need to stay focused on the central issue:

The pro-lifer should remember that the central issue is, "What is the human community and does the unborn belong to it?"  As my friend Greg Koukl puts it: if the fetus is a person, none of the popular arguments are relevant; if the fetus is not a person, then none of the popular arguments is necessary. Pro-lifers make a mistake by allowing the discussion to drift away from this central question.
 
Pro-lifers have to also remember that many who support abortion rights are well-meaning people who believe they are advancing a position consistent with the common good. This is why we should be patient, respectful, and careful when presenting our case.  Having said that, we must also not shy away from saying that abortion is a grave evil that ultimately undermines the dignity of all human persons, including those who support abortion rights. After all, if a human being is intrinsically valuable by nature, then he or she may never lose that status as long as one is a human being.  So, the reason why we affirm the intrinsic dignity of the unborn is the reason why we also affirm the intrinsic dignity of those who support abortion rights. There is a seamlessness that connects our pro-life position on abortion and the respect we ought to accord our political and moral adversaries.

Agreed. And my concern here is not to weigh into the presidential campaign. Rather, it's with the sort of approach taken by Sen. Obama, which I think is a popular one. In other words, for me, this is not ultimately a political issue, but a moral issue—and a moral issue that has much to do with philosophy, science, and theology. 

• Sen. Barack Obama: "I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion." (Jan. 24, 2008)
• That's why Catholics should vote for Sen. Obama? (Feb. 15, 2008)
• Catholic reporter defends his support for Obama, stating: "bishops be damned" (Feb. 15, 2008)
• The soul of Senator Barack Obama (Feb. 28, 2008)
• Donahue vs. Obama (May 13, 2008)
• Roman Catholics for Obama '08 | Paul Kengor (Catholic World Report, June 2008)

Comments

[Mark Brumley]

The question was, "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" That is not primarily a theological issue or scientific issue, although those topics have a bearing on the matter. Since the question deals with human rights, it's a political issue, in the classical sense of "political"--an issue pertaining to the good of the polis. It is also a philosophical issue, since politics, in the classical sense, is a subdivision of ethics.

Since the office of President of the United States involves upholding the Constitution and the Constitution is predicated on the securing of basic human rights, it is the business of the President of the United States to have a reasonable judgment about whether babies have human rights and when they acquire them. To adopt a prolife stance is to hold a certain understanding of "when babies get human rights". However, to adopt a "prochoice" or proabortion rights stance also involves a claim to know when "babies get human rights". The latter entails the tacit denial of the right to life for unborn babies. It is nonsensical and incoherent to imply on the one hand that one does not know when "babies get human rights" and on the other hand that unborn babies may be killed through abortion.

One's endorsement of the legal right to choose abortion implies either that one deliberately and knowingly supports denial of human rights to babies, or that one does not think that unborn babies have human rights and therefore that laws permitting mothers to kill them do not entail a violation of human rights. Neither position is compatible with a claim to ignorance about when "babies get human rights".

[joanne]

There's a small oops in the article linked last, Roman Catholics For Obama '08. It's in the following paragraph:
"Who are these Catholics? They are an eclectic bunch, from politicians like Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Democratic Governor Tim Kaine (Va.), Democratic Governor Bill Richardson (N.M.), Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-Mass.), Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) to Dan Rooney, owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers football team."
Too bad, for a minute there, I thought a certain rep had moved or been exiled. :) Then the reality of the typo found its way through the lateness of the hour.
Good news regarding Obama, though. An apology for his misrepresentations (not lies?)has been reported. http://lifesite.net/

[Carl E. Olson]

Since the question deals with human rights, it's a political issue, in the classical sense of "political"--an issue pertaining to the good of the polis. It is also a philosophical issue, since politics, in the classical sense, is a subdivision of ethics.

Mark: Excellent, excellent point. Russell Kirk wrote (in The Roots of American Order, if I remember correctly) that politics are rooted in ethics, and ethics are rooted in religion. My point about "political currency and expedience" is that Sen. Obama does not seem to know, or perhaps does not care, about the traditional understanding of politics. He is seems to approach politics as if the driving concern should be victimhood, class warfare, and radical individual rights.

What I should have noted is what you put so well: Sen. Obama feigns ignorance of when human rights begin, but his actions say otherwise. His remark is either glib, or condescending, or disingenuous. Or all three.

[Dan Deeny]

Thank you for this comment on Sen. Obama and the abortion business. As far as I know, only one member of the Black Caucus has opposed the abortion business. His name was Mickey Leland, and he was from Texas. He died in a plane crash in Ethiopia.

[Nick]

You guys want a real shocker, remember when Obama was asked about whether he believes that evil exists? Obama said, "We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children." This is coming from the man who wants the most vicious forms (eg partial birth) of abortion legalized.

[JohnE]

If it's above his pay grade but he makes those decisions anyway, perhaps he should to the respectable thing and resign from public office.