Words'nTone

It did not matter to me whether pro-choice advocate and POTUS spoke at Notre Dame.  I would have jumped at the chance to speak to an institution that opposes my position on one of the key dividing issues of the day—abortion.  If NOW asked me to speak at one of their gatherings, of course I’d speak on the issue of abortion and whether we’re killing an innocent human being inside the womb of a pregnant woman.  If one of the many gay-rights groups asked me to speak at a convention or conference, of course I would talk about the issue of gay marriage.  President Obama speaking at Notre Dame’s 2009 commencement—not an issue for me.  That’s the decision for the College President, its Board of Trustees, its contributing alumni and supporters, and future applicants to decide.

What I take issue with is his words—his doublespeak, weasel words, puffery to make his appeal for civility on the issue of abortion between two-opposing philosophies: Pro-abortion and Pro-life.  It is his audacity for common ground and its place in the public debate on the issue of taking the life of someone who is clearly a human being in the womb of a pregnant woman.  With the President’s call for concentrating on the so-called “common ground” which both sides have, Obama utilizes in one swift oracle of neutrality what appears to be a more civil and more appealing approach to the issue that divides many of us personally and politically a debate tactic that is pure puffery, a set of weasel words that distract from the issue at hand, but yet look appealing to the audience.  It is the President’s audacity of common ground that begs the question regarding the issue of abortion.

Can you imagine?  We have sharp differences of opinion.  You believe blacks are human and slavery is an evil.  I believe they are less than human or at least do not have the same rights as European Whites and provide a service that supports our economic well-being as a nation.  Imagine I have been asked to speak at Oberlin College, in the 1800’s a college committed to ending slavery.  My position on slavery is well known, but I have been asked to speak nonetheless, because we have other issues in common and I am someone of public prestige.  Now imagine in my address I said, “We have stark differences of opinion on the issue of slavery, but we should be more civil in our public debate.  We both want people to be treated more nicely and have better living conditions.  We want to see less slavery.  So let’s work on the common ground that we both hold—we can work toward slave-owners treating their slaves more nicely and providing better living conditions.  We can work toward less shipping of slaves from foreign countries.  But let us not let our words divide us.  Let’s work together for our common goals.”

Nice words.  Pleasant approach.  Seemingly civil.  But yet, it still leaves the issue of the nature of slavery untouched, not debated, and unresolved.  And, oh yea…human beings are still being treated as less than human beings and human beings are still being enslaved.  To argue “common ground” is no argument at all.  It leaves what is opposed in place.  Such a tactic allows those who are pro-slavery—really, we are talking about abortion here—to not muster up the argument and thought for sustaining such a practice.  It allows the position to go unchallenged.  Slavery stays in place.  The policy that allows some human beings to be treated as less than human goes unchecked and remains the law of the land.  In this case, the common ground rhetoric allows the President to sidestep the argument and sound honorable at the same time.  But babies are still allowed to be killed for the convenience of adults.  That’s the problem with President Obama’s 2009 Notre Dame Commencement speech—his audacity of common ground.

POTUS just doesn’t get it.  But perhaps, he and other pro-abortion advocates don’t really care about getting it.  They have their position.  It is a women’s right.  And that’s that.  But...see 2 of 2...

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.