R. Albert Mohler has written a response to President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame. Mohler also discussed the speech on the Monday edition of his radio program (listen below or download here).[audio:http://www.sbts.edu/media/audio/totl/2009/AMP_05_18_2009.mp3]
Here’s an excerpt from Mohler’s essay, and the analysis is spot-on:
‘In the end, the President’s comments were entirely about how Americans should discuss or debate abortion. There was no serious consideration of abortion itself. President Obama merely talked about talking about abortion.
‘This was a moral evasion and an insult to the importance of the issue. If the President had actually addressed the issue of abortion — if he had actually even offered a defense or rationale for his own position — he would have dignified the issue. Instead, Mr. Obama issued what amounted to a call for civility. . .
‘If President Obama had actually spoken of abortion itself, rather than addressing abortion only as an issue of controversy, he would have found himself defending the indefensible, which explains why he avoids this discussion at all costs. Yet, now that he is President, he cannot get by with claiming that this question is “above my pay grade” . . .
‘At the University of Notre Dame President Barack Obama talked about talking about abortion. One day, he will have to talk about abortion itself. He will put that day off as long as possible.’
Something tells me that the most common defense for President Obama’s avoidance of the issue is going to be blamed on the venue. “Speaking at a college graduation isn’t the place to defend abortion.” Of course, this ignores the fact that Obama brought it up, and spoke on it all by himself.
It sounds suspiciously like Obama thinks that reason and thoughtful discussion are on his side. Maybe they are, or maybe it’s just generally important to get the radical “pro-lifers” thinking again.
A thoughtful Christian blogger over at ConversantLife had this to say:
I can handle the protestors being called, â€œAnti-abortionâ€ protestors, but not Pro-life, because they are not. They are pro some lives, but not all.
I believe that was George Carlin, wasn’t it ;-)?
I understand what that person is saying, however, to be consistent with that mentality, wouldnâ€™t that necessarily preclude opposing all abortion? Given that some pregnancies that continue have a risk of death of the mother? They have also identified all war as unjust (think being attacked), etc. Thatâ€™s a very difficult blanket statement to make, I think. And perhaps that falls in line with their thinking, I don’t know.
Supporting torture is not Pro-life. Supporting the war in Iraq is not Pro-life.
Wrong on both counts. That which is referred to as “torture” is barely touching the line of torture, plus it is only done with a pro-life ethic: momentary discomfort of a terrorist could lead to the saving of many innocent lives. That seems like the definition of pro-life, but that’s just me.
Supporting the Iraq War is also a pro-life ideal, since the goal is to punish evil murderers and protect and improve innocent life. Again, that’s pro-life in my book.