Pres. Obama responds to Glendon's decision

From MSNBC.com (big ht to National Catholic Register):

“President Obama is disappointed by former Ambassador Mary Glendon’s decision," Spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki, "but he looks forward to delivering an inclusive and respectful speech at the Notre Dame graduation, a school with a rich history of fostering the exchange of ideas.  While he is honored to have the support of millions of people of all faiths, he does not govern with the expectation that everyone sees eye to eye with him on every position, and the spirit of debate and healthy disagreement on important issues is part of what he loves about this country.”

Tom McFeeley of the Register writes:

Mr. President, here’s a reminder for you about one of the tragic consequences of America’s regime of legal abortion of which you are such a strong supporter.There is a legion of American citizens who won’t be privileged to be included among the audience when you make your “inclusive” speech at Notre Dame — the millions of unborn babies, killed in their mothers’ wombs by legal abortion, who as a consequence were denied the chance to grow up, attend college and celebrate their graduation at a commencement ceremony.

I recall that when then-candidate Obama, while in a debate with Sen. McCain, was asked by Rick Warren at what point a baby gets “human rights,” Obama famously said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question  with specificity … is above my pay grade.” So he won't actually take part in the debate, but he'll happily go to Notre Dame and receive the honorary law degree, etc.

It's worth noting that the MSNBC.com piece refers to Glendon as being "conservative," as an "abortion foe," and as being "staunchly anti-abortion." All of that is true, of course, but the piece never identifies Pres. Obama as being an abortion supporter, or as "pro-abortion." (Yes, I know: he insists that no one is pro-abortion.) Which gives the impression that it is Glendon who has taken the extreme position, even though she is the one opposed to the killing of unborn innocents.

Comments

[g]

Carl, MSN is owned by GE which has gotten a ton of $$ from the O Administration. Its not possible for their bias not to show.

[Evan]

"I recall that when then-candidate Obama, while in a debate with Sen. McCain, was asked by Rick Warren at what point a baby gets “human rights,” Obama famously said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.” So he won't actually take part in the debate, but he'll happily go to Notre Dame and receive the honorary law degree, etc."

A law degree, you say? Not a degree in science or theology?

[LJ]

Well done Evan. That hair was a particularly fine one and so far from the issue that splitting it must have required great precision.

[Joe]

Of course from a devil's standpoint, this is why Fr. Jenkin's move was so good: once posed, the question itself lowers the bar of the debate. Obama is a good man, regardless of what position he takes, as long as he is true to his conscience.

The real scandal is why a man like Jenkons is allowed to continue making poor decisions for a premier Church school.

[Evan]

Well done Evan. That hair was a particularly fine one and so far from the issue that splitting it must have required great precision.

Oh, come off it. I'm opposed to Obama's recognition as well, and I've praised Glendon's decision in other venues and against strong opposition from others, even though I haven't really jumped into the ND issue here on the Ignatius blog.

But we've got to split hairs... we simply have to. Constructive responses could have involved the necessary natural basis of just law and Obama's failure to work within such a framework, or some other critique the cuts pro-choice policy off at its knees. The whole basis of Obama's original point to Warren was that he recognizes various modes of inquiry as distinct and his pro-choice policy stance responds to legal rather than biological or theological questions. You're not going to preach effectively to anyone but the choir if you mash all of that together and assume that your opponent is, or should be, on the same page.

Splitting hairs or not, I'm not simply being contrarian. Obama's whole point is that legal work requires certain responses where biological and theological considerations are not universally recognized. You can't begin to make a dent in this argument until you open your eyes to realize that it's there, and then respond appropriately.

There, I've said my piece. But do, go on assuming you know where I land on all of these issues because I offer some dispute here and there. That'll do wonders for the collective penchant for critical thought, I'm sure.

[Carl E. Olson]

A law degree, you say? Not a degree in science or theology?

Yes, a law degree. After all, Obama is a lawyer/politician who has been actively involved in all sorts of legislation and activities having to do with abortion. Surely he must, at some point, had to consider central theological and philosophical questions about the the beginning of human life, even if he himself is not trained as a theologian or philosopher. (And if he hasn't, what does that say about him as a thinker? A moral leader?) If, in fact, having a law degree has nothing to do with making theological or philosophical distinctions and judgment, why was "Roe v. Wade" so shot through with metaphysical and philosophical assumptions and judgments? Obama's statement was indeed clever, but it also exposed the emptiness of his position and the crass utilitarianism of his staunch support of abortion and "choice," and his willingness to conveniently categorize matters so that he can escape proper moral responsibility for his various political and public actions.