2008 Abortion Rhetoric
posted by on February 28 at 16:21 PM
Erica, I think you are being insane. That statement Obama made in response to a question from a pro-life fanatic in Iowa was, in my opinion, brilliant. I think I’ve linked to it on the Slog before, but if I haven’t, I can tell you for sure: That line from our Obama endorsement about abortion rights (“He has eloquently defended abortion rights on the campaign trail, and his votes in the U.S. Senate have earned him a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America”)? I was referring to this exact response.
Here’s the entire context and quote:
The Questioner: “I see a great a contradiction going on in our society, right now, and I don’t understand it. Maybe you can help me out. On the one hand, we see a guy like Michael Vick, who will likely lose his livelihood and spend some time in jail and there’s been a tremendous outcry against this man because of fighting dogs. There’s been a huge, huge reaction. On the other hand, we have 34 years and counting where thousands of innocent, sweet babies are being killed every day through what we call abortion, yet that voice has seemingly died out. What would you do about that and what’s happening in our society when people can’t seem to see this contradiction?”Mr. Obama: “The issue of abortion, I don’t think, has gone away. People think about it a lot, obviously you do and you feel impassioned. I think that the American people struggle with two principles: There’s the principle that a fetus is not just an appendage, it’s potential life. I think people recognize that there’s a moral element to that. They also believe that women should have some control over their bodies and themselves and there is a privacy element to making those decisions.
“I don’t think people take the issue lightly. A lot of people have arrived in the view that I’ve arrived at, which is that there is a moral implication to these issues, but that the women involved are in the best position to make that determination. And I don’t think they make it lightly. I don’t think they make it callously, so I reject a comparison between a woman struggling with these issues and Michael Vick fighting dogs for sport. I don’t think that’s sort of how people perceive it.
“Now, this is one of those areas – again, I think it’s important to be honest – where I don’t think you’re ever going to get a complete agreement on this issue. If you believe that life begins at conception, then I can’t change your mind. I think there is a large agreement, for example, that late-term abortions are really problematic and there should be a regulation. And it should only happen in terms of the mother’s life or severe health consequences, so I think there is broad agreement on these issues.
“One area where I think we should have significant agreement is on the idea of reducing unwanted pregnancies because if we can reduce unwanted pregnancies, then it’s much less likely that people resort to abortion. The way to do that is to encourage young people and older people, people of child-bearing years, to act responsibly. Part of acting responsibly – I’ve got two daughters – part of my job as a parent is to communicate to them that sex isn’t casual and that it’s something that they should really think about and not think is just a game.
“I’m all for education for our young people, encouraging abstinence until marriage, but I also believe that young people do things regardless of what their parents tell them to do and I don’t want my daughters ending up in really difficult situations because I didn’t communicate to them, how to protect themselves if they make a mistake. I think we’ve got to have that kind of comprehensive view that says family planning and education for our young people and so forth – to prevent teen pregnancies, to prevent the kinds of situations that lead to women having to struggle with these difficult decisions and we should be supportive of those efforts. That’s an area where there should be some agreement.”
I see no way you could possibly read this entire statement as anything but a calm, compassionate way of talking to someone who will never agree with Obama on the issue of abortion. He recognizes that some people think abortion is wrong and that women should not be allowed access to make that moral determination independently. He then explains that he disagrees. He says encouraging abstinence makes sense, but then thoroughly rejects the notion of abstinence-only education.
Let’s compare this scenario to one in which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, intentionally and without being asked, introduced the topic of a woman’s emotional response to abortion. In fact, she brought it up in front of a completely friendly audience: the New York State Family Planning Providers. Here’s what she said:
This decision, which is one of the most fundamental, difficult and soul searching decisions a woman and a family can make, is also one in which the government should have no role. I believe we can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women. Often, it’s a failure of our system of education, health care, and preventive services. It’s often a result of family dynamics. This decision is a profound and complicated one; a difficult one, often the most difficult that a woman will ever make. The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Objectively speaking, the two candidates were saying the same thing: Abortion has a moral dimension that some people find troubling. But the government should not be able to make that moral determination for a woman. Moreover, the best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and that goal requires quality sex education. Here’s how their statements differ: Where Obama defused emotion, Clinton injected emotion.
I think Obama’s response was smart, and it’s obviously zero cause for alarm about his support for abortion rights. This is getting ridiculous.
Here's how their statements differ: Where Obama defused emotion, Clinton injected emotion.
Which is EXACTLY what is required when dealing with pro-choice issues on a government level. Thank you, Annie. Well said.
Mmmmmm...sweet, succuclent babies. Let's eat!
Seriously...absurd.
gobama. i couldn't be more convinced he's the right man for the job.
55-45 over old man mccain.
I blogged about that same quote from Obama, and what it means for his ability to appeal to evangelicals who don't even agree with him about policy here:
http://www.urbanhonking.com/holymoly/archives/2008/02/thoughts_in_ant.html
Thousands of babies a day? What a liar.
I agree - his was a thoughtful response to someone who will never agree with him. I think it showed a sensitivity to the issue. Good for him.
There are about 3,300 abortions a day performed in the US. It's a big country.
@7,
All right. I stand corrected.
@5, thousands of induced abortions are performed every day in this country. Roughly 3000-4000. Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf
I'm pro-choice, believe that abortion is a good choice in some circumstances, and have no patience for "dead baby" rhetoric. But the numbers cited by the questioner are accurate.
You may think Erica is insane, but we *know* she is.
A president constantly has to communicate effectively with people who disagree with [her/him], both domestically and internationally. In fact, diplomacy used to be a requirement. What better example of why this guy would make an excellent president?
When South Dakota passed a law banning abortion, guess who was the ONLY Senator to raise money for (ultimately successful) repeal effort?
Hint: It wasn't Hillary Clinton.
well, see i liked both their answers. and, to me, the difference is clearly between a person who's grown a baby inside them and felt the hormone changes that happen with pregnancy, who knows on an experiential, empathic level what a newly pregnant woman seeking an abortion might feel....and a person who's speaking from a very well-informed, sympathetic point of view.
i don't think either is more valid or more well-put. it's just two different people saying the same thing in their own individual ways. i don't think you need to separate emotion from your leadership skills. in fact, i kind of think that's exactly what people like about obama and wish hillary would do more of. (and i'm still rooting for hillary).
Ouch. Spanked by Annie you were ECB!
Hawt.
Ok ... let's settle this instead the old fashioned way.
Annie vs Erica in a hot oil wrestling Texas grudge match @ Moe's on the night of the Texas primary.
Who's in!?
All I know is President McCain has promised to appoint more anti-choice Supreme Court Justices during his two terms in office ...
Yeah, that matters.
3300 a day is not enough. We need more parking spaces on Capitol Hill.
That's because, unlike ECB, you're not specifically fishing for reasons to disapprove of Obama. And, additionally, unlike ECB, you don't appear to view the capacity to anger one's political opponents as a strict measure of success in and of itself.
Erica is insane. But the real insanity is these long ass Slog screeds.
More after the jump! Are there any sweeter words in the English language than more after the jump? No. None sweeter.
Less is more. Less is more. Pick out one or two alluring money quotes, put them in the lead, and then stow the rest behind a link or after the jump.
@14
I suggested this 2 month ago, but the contestants were Amy Kate and O. Monique. That was before I knew they had husbands and boyfriends, respectively. Now they should be barefoot and preggers instead of mineral oil wrestlemania.
Sorry, I had to do that. I completely recant my last statement. For original monique.
Make me stop! I can't help myself.
*Yawn*. How many angels fit on the head of a pin?
It's not Erica's fault entirely. Hillary does that to people. They tend to go insane.
They have to, to think that she will ever deliver them any sort of real change.
You know what they say about the definition of insanity -- trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? Yeah.
@18, well I think "pitchers and catchers report" are about the sweetest words in English, but "more after the jump" rank right up there.
Other than that, great post annie.
Thanks Annie W.
My god...
A more reasoned and direct discussion I have not seen on the national level, by a heavy-duty political leader, in this country ... ever.
More of this type of discussion... PLEASE.
What is with all you people who jump on a bandwagon just because you see a part of a sentence that is highlighted in bold? There is no question that Obama delivered a fantastic and engaging response to the original question posed. WHY exactly (and HOW) did Clinton "inject emotion" into her response? Simply because she used the word "sad"?? Her comment doesn't in any way seem to me to indicate that her stance on abortion is itself supported by primarily emotional considerations - we need *far* more evidence of the support claims for her conclusion before we can make such a judgment. She is stating a relatively uncontroversial claim - namely, that many (not all) women are deeply troubled and distraught over the decision they think is sometimes best. And even if this is an example of "reasoning from emotion", it certainly seems to me to be a good reason in favor of reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies out there. How can an individual's own hardship and suffering *NOT* count in favor of implementing preventative measures aimed at reducing or eliminating the frequency of whatever is the cause of that suffering? Our emotions are often deeply relevant to the decisions we face each day, and there is no consensus (even among philosophers) what role they should play in decision-making. Don't pretend as if "true objectivity" can only be achieved by relegating our emotions to the (putative) "space outside of our rationality".
This is an excellent example for a critical thinking class of how a journalist, coming to an issue with a particular bent and agenda, capitalizes sneakily on ambiguous language in order to construct a rather gossamer "argument". What's worse is that the comment seems to reinforce the whole "reason vs. emotion" (false) dichotomy that only fuels public rhetoric (and more stupid, stupid commentary) surrounding the bases for political arguments.
Great post, Annie. My thoughts exactly.
As much as I've enjoyed Erica's writing in the past, her fanatical attempts to discredit Obama by twisting facts and ignoring logic are really damaging her overall credibility as a journalist.
Oh, Jesus. He gets a question about a controversial topic, and responds with five paragraphs? Clueless, guy. Don't you know presidential candidates are only supposed to speak in five-second sound bites? And knee-jerk reactions are WAY better than critical thinking. You want to be seen as the kind of guy voters would want to have a beer with, not one of those Goddamned intellectuals.
I'm an Obama supporter, so I'm inclined to say that his response is better, but I don't see anything wrong with the way Clinton responded. I agree with the poster who suggested that the difference is that Clinton has been pregnant and understands the issue from a woman's point of view.
As much as I appreciate male politicians standing up for the right to choose, I think there's a difference between the way women look at the issue. We're the ones who have to make the decision, after all.
Both responses will fall on deaf ears.
Christians who are pro-life see themselves as modern day abolitionists. Just as slave-owners argued states-rights, their own privacy and right to do with their property what they would, so to the "it's MY body" as utter bullshit. The government regulates every other medical operation (why not this one?). Where the government doesn't establish specific laws, medical ethics gives guidelines for doctors to conduct their work. Yet nobody says "It's MY body, and I want to sell my kidney, goddammit."
That's the very issue at stake. Pro-lifers are simply saying, "It's not your body, you just murdered your child" and think the government should get involved whether it happened in the womb or out.
I have no problem with a forceful defense of her candidate, but seeing the way ECB has twisted and misrepresented Obama's position on choice really makes me wonder what's happening with her other articles on other topics that aren't as easily fact-checked. Seriously, this dishonesty is reaching Fox News levels. Does anyone actually read the stuff she's writing and question it before it's printed up?
I find myself dissastified about what Obama has said. To question whether life begins at conception or not is idiocy. A fertilized egg is alive or else it would be dead. It can only be one or the other. A fertillized human egg will only become a human being, nothing else (various movies aside). It is a lie to suggest that there is no life and it is odious to me to question that life's humanity.
The question is whether or not human life should be respected at all stages or not (yes, I'm borrowing from Catholic thinking here). The situation we have now is that it is not. That's fine by me and I can live with it. I can see why others cannot or choose not to. I can't say that I judge them especially negatively for that reason, but it is noted.
I do not think that it is acceptable to have people running around fudging the facts. A fertillized human egg is a human being at his or her earliest stage of development. While most of them will not survive without any intervention of fully developed human beings, it is false to suggest or say that interventions by fully developed humans (i.e. the people that the law recognizes as people) cannot or do not cause the destruction of a human being.
It's not really all that big a deal as humans regularly destroy other human beings. It's called war, and it's not necessarily wrong.
But let's not put on any blinkers about the facts at play here. Obama is spreading falsehoods about this. If a human life does not factually begin at conception, where else could it possible commence? This is a question of science and is determinable in a scientific manner just like whether the earth revolves around the sun or the other way around. It is not a moral question.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).