Irreconcilable Differences

A recent article in the Washington Post illustrated yet again why I think the liberal media sees the world through different lenses than regular folks. In addressing the controversy surrounding Notre Dame’s invitation for Obama to speak at its May 17th commencement ceremony, the Post was puzzled by the reaction of those who believe innocent unborn human life deserves more consideration than that given an appendage, parasite or tumor. After all, it offered, “Obama…has sought to ease tensions over an issue that has dogged politicians on the right and left for nearly three decades.” In what possible way has he “sought to ease tensions” on this defining moral issue?
Thus far in his Presidency, Barack Obama has:
- Lifted the ban on sending our tax dollars to international family planning organizations that promote or provide abortions, declaring “I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate.”
- Halted broad new job protections put in place by President Bush for health workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionable such as abortions and distribution of the morning-after emergency contraception pill, and remanded them for further review.
- Nominated to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel a female attorney who believes unplanned pregnancy is a form of slavery and violates the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
- Chosen as his Secretary of Health and Human Services a governor who misrepresented substantial campaign contributions she received from an unapologetic and controversial abortionist, and who Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City says will “continue her personal involvement in promoting legalized abortion and her cooperation in this intrinsic evil.”
Obama often speaks of wanting to find common ground and he did so again at Notre Dame, but his actions speak loudly regarding his true intentions - to defend the woman’s choice to have her unborn child legally murdered for her convenience or that of the man who fathered the child.
Obama acknowledged abortion “is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.” He went on to set as a goal “to reduce the number 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.” These are all good things, but he and his pro-abortion allies are missing the point entirely.
Our nation is founded on the principle that ALL life is sacred and worthy of protection.  There are no qualifiers or conditions because once you begin making exceptions, it takes the determination of human worth out of the hands of God or nature, whichever you prefer, and places it into the hands of man. What follows is slavery, human trafficking, genocide, instituitionized discrimation and other atrocities by man against man. The more powerful declare the less powerful unworthy of life and thereby justify all manner of evil committed against them.
The reason abortion is a “heart-wrenching decision” is because a woman knows, and society knows, there is a new human being inside of her and she is that new person’s mother at the moment of conception. Being a mother comes with the obligation to protect and shelter your child. A mother murdering her children is barbarsim too cruel for the human soul to accept, so we disavow words like “abortion,” “termination,” and “murder” and replace them with use words like “rights” and “self-determination” as a narcotic for our troubled consciences.
If abortion is a right as so many radical feminists claim, why is it a “heart-wrenching decision”? Why is it something we are trying to reduce or make rare? Rights are to be celebrated, not hushed. The duplicity of the pro-abortion argument is as garish as a flashing neon sign, yet they stand there saying, “What sign? I don’t see a sign.”
Last summer when Obama participated in the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, he said about abortion, ““On this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception ... and you are consistent, then I can’t argue with you on that.” So why does he continue to claim we can find common ground when he condones a practice we know to be murder? He doesn’t really want to unite us but to divide and conquer us by picking off those who treasure the lack of conflict over fighting for what’s right.
I will support the president’s goals for reducing abortion, yet I will still fight for the culture to acknowledge the humanity of unborn persons. The reason I cannot find common ground with Obama is that he wants to continue the practice of murdering innocents even as he seeks to reduce how many of these murders take place. That is unacceptable.

Originally published at RegularFolksUnited.com

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/30 at 12:44 AM
M20o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr
M30o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr
M40o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr M50o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr

<< Back to main