10/22/2008 (3:14 pm)
The leftist meme is that nobody likes abortions, but they’re wholeheartedly committed to choice. I’ve never heard anybody defend this position in an honest debate, and I doubt that it would survive intellectually even one such encounter with a reasonable opponent. However, Robert George at the Witherspoon Institute has written an analysis of Barack Obama’s position on abortion, and concludes that even granting the left its sophism regarding “choice,” if it’s possible for a candidate actually to be called pro-abortion rather than pro-choice, it’s Barack Obama.
Professor George takes us down a progression of Obama’s stances on various abortion-related issues, arranged in increasing clarity according to how clearly they show the candidate’s actual approval of abortion as a practice. He walks us through Obama’s intention of providing federal funding for abortions, removing all existing state laws requiring parental notification or limits on partial-birth abortions, stripping all pro-life crisis pregnancy centers of their federal funding, his opposition to providing S-CHIP coverage for unborn children (a measure that does not in any way threaten legal abortions, but merely makes the choice not to abort easier for indigent women,) his opposition to informed consent laws requiring accurate information about abortion’s long-term health effects for women considering abortions, his opposition to protections for infants born alive as the result of a failed abortion, his support for deliberate production of embryos for the purpose of manufacturing stem cells, and his support for requiring abortions in cases of fertilization produced by cloning. In the progression, it becomes clear that Senator Obama is not concerned about individual liberty (as implied by the “choice” rhetoric), but that he actually values abortion as a practice. Many of these positions are more radical than those of his fellow Democrats in the US Senate. Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for major office.
My only quibble with Prof. George is his claim that Obama’s opposition to federal funding for means of producing embryonic stem cells that do not require embryos to be destroyed in the process, constitutes opposition to life. We use the argument — and I believe it to be correct — that opposition to federal funding for embryonic stem cell research does not constitute opposition to embryonic stem cell research itself. Since that’s true, we can’t take Obama’s opposition to federal funding to be absolute proof that he opposes the act for which the funding is intended; only, it seems more likely since Obama does not seem to oppose any federal involvement in any area of life on simply libertarian grounds.
It’s a worthwhile read if you’re among those inexplicable pro-lifers who intend to vote for Obama because he claims his policies will reduce the number of abortions, a claim for which I can find no reasonable support anywhere but among abortion’s friends.
3 Comments »
Comment by King Tiger
Perhaps what he means by reducing abortions is that in the “long run” there will be fewer abortions because there will be fewer people to give abortions to.
If we abort them NOW they cant have children later.
[...] but Obama is no ordinary abortion advocate. His historic stance on abortion policy, in practice, has always out-lefted the leftmost advocates, even while he’s jockeyed to grant himself plausible moderation to fool voters. This is why, [...]
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » Is Abortion Genocide?
[...] of legal abortions — a direction that those of us who actually did our homework about Obama fully expected. Democrats claim that they really don’t like abortions, that nobody really wants them, that [...]