EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
I really enjoyed what Rick Warren did at Saddleback Church this weekend. In case you missed it, you can get the full video and transcript here. What struck me most was Obama's total lack of fluidity and charisma when he was off-script. The man can give a stirring speech, but when pressed to improvise answers to tough questions, I found him halting, awkward, vague, and uncompelling. His answer on the abortion question struck me as particularly uncompelling. Here's the video. Here's the transcript:
I found that answer disturbing for three reasons. Number one: What's up with the verbosity? Why not just say "I don't know"? That's essentially what this answer boils down to. We get no explanation of why he doesn't know, we just get a profession of ignorance. Secondly, if Obama doesn't feel qualified to answer that question, why does he feel qualified to even speak on the issue of abortion legislation, let alone vote on that legislation? When a bill concerning abortion comes to the floor of the Senate (or to the Oval Office, if he becomes President), shouldn't he recuse himself and explain that this issue is "above his pay grade"? It seems like Obama's position of self-proclaimed ignorance here should at least lead him to abstain from setting any public policy on abortion. Obama's pro-choice position given this profession of ignorance is like saying "You know what, I have absolutely no idea what's going on with Iran. It's really hard to see what exactly the situation is there, and I'm just in the dark. But I think we should invade, and I'll vote for any law that says we should invade." That's crazy. If you don't know what's going on with Iran, you shouldn't have an opinion about whether or not we should invade. And you certainly shouldn't try to implement that opinion as public policy. Rather, you should at least abstain from belief and action when it comes to this subject you're ignorant of. Thirdly, it seems like his position of self-proclaimed ignorance should lead to more than mere abstension in this case. It seems like this position of ignorance should lead him to implement very conservative abortion policies. Let me explain why. Suppose that, during the Autumn, you routinely rake up the leaves in your backyard into a pile and then incinerate them. Suppose that one day I tell you "Hey, I saw a neighborhood kid playing in your pile of leaves. I don't know for sure, but she may still be in there. I'd say it's a 50/50 chance she's in there." You're a bit annoyed, and you wish that you could just move on with your arduous task of raking and incinerating. This is inconvenient for you, having to tolerate that messy pile in your backyard longer than you anticipated. Yet you are not now in a position to answer the question "Is there a child in my pile of leaves?" with specificity (either from a theological or scientific perspective, as Obama says). Is the case clear? There's a 50/50 chance that there's a kid in your pile of leaves. You're not sure. You don't have a belief either way. You can't "answer that question with specificity." That question is "above your pay grade." No my question is this: Shouldn't you refrain from incinerating the pile? Shouldn't you take a conservative policy towards incineration? Wouldn't you rather be safe than sorry? Of course. I think it's obvious that you shouldn't incinerate the pile. In fact, you should also prevent other people from incinerating the pile, even if it means really inconveniencing them, or putting a substantial financial or physical burden on them. After all, there may be a child in that pile of leaves. Substantial financial and physical burdens are outweighed by even the possibility of the life of the child. But if that's true in the case of leaves, why shouldn't it be true in the case of abortion? If ignorance about whether there is a child in my pile of leaves means that I shouldn't incinerate the leaves, Barack Obama's professed ignorance about whether unborn fetuses have human rights means that he shouldn't allow abortions. If children made a habit of hiding in leaf piles, we'd outlaw indiscriminate leaf-pile incineration. Well, fetuses do make a habit out of implanting in uteruses. Shouldn't we therefore outlaw abortion? I think the answer is clearly "yes." And so I think Obama's self-described ignorance of when fetuses gain human rights should lead him to implement very conservative pro-life abortion policies. Yet he is pro-choice. And so I think his beliefs and practices contradict each other. This blog is getting quite long, so I'll save my second objection to Obama's abortion answer for later this week. |
Comments
I appreciate you speaking up for the living yet unborn.
Great observations.
Excellent points. I agree wholeheartedly. I was annoyed when he couldn't even give his opinion. The question was simple. You either believe its at conception or at birth. A definite smooth yet airhead response. On the other hand, I was Mccain would have given a dollar amount when asked what he considered rich.
A great blog!!!
This was a good point, but be careful not to spin it. This blog makes Obama look like he doesn't care about children that are aborted. This is clearly not true because in that exact same youtube post, he later on pointed out that Bush has been pro-life for 8 years as president yet abortions have increased and Obma's goal is to seek methods to reduce abortions. And please check your zeal because I don't see a correlation between his stumbling in his speech and his issues on being pro-choice.
I state all this, because in this race, people are going to do a lot of spinning. I just recently saw on Youtube a post about Mccain that made it seem like he didn't care about the troops coming back from the war. The title was: "McCain: If You Want to Leave Iraq You Don't Understand War". He was saying this, but his point wasn't that he doesn't care and wants soldiers to die like this title seems to imply. His point was that he sees staying in Iraq a little while longer as a means of stabilization.
To put it bluntly, let the world do their spinning, let us christians try to learn from each other. If I vote (because I don't know yet since I am disgusted by all of this spinning), I will most likely vote for Obama, but I have still learned a lot from the perspectives of those in favor of McCain. Keep it coming, but please stop the spinning because McCain is not Jesus. And neither is Obama.
Some people have, coincidentally or purposely, not responded when I talk like this, but I still want you all to be fair. And this blog was semi-fair tamb but not completely because you attacked something that had nothing to do with the issue (his stumbling speech) and you didn't mention his points at the end of his speech (about trying to decrease abortions). So, honestly, in my opinion, it was spun, intentionally or not, in a way to rile up people that take a pro-life stance.
Hey Joel,
Thanks for the comment. You raised a few points:
>>This blog makes Obama look like he doesn't care about children that are aborted.>>
That certainly wasn't my intention. My main points were these: if Obama doesn't know when a fetus becomes a person (with human rights), why does he hold hold pro-choice beliefs and vote on abortion related legislation? Shouldn't he at least abstain from any beliefs or action in this area? It doesn't make any sense.
Second, if he's not sure when a fetus becomes a person, shouldn't he support very conservative legislation, just to be sure that he doesn't institute murder as public policy? I mean, if fetuses aren't people, abortion isn't murder. If they are people, abortion is murder. If we're not sure whether or not fetuses are people, shouldn't we outlaw abortion, just to be on the safe side? Again, Obama's position doesn't make sense.
I suspect that he really does have an opinion on the question of when a fetus becomes a person, which would explain his pro-choice beliefs and policies. I don't know why he didn't share that opinion with us this weekend.
>>This is clearly not true because in that exact same youtube post, he later on pointed out that Bush has been pro-life for 8 years as president yet abortions have increased and Obma's goal is to seek methods to reduce abortions.>>
Here's a very effective way to reduce the number of abortions: outlaw them. If abortion is murder, it should be outlawed. Why doesn't Obama propose to outlaw them? Presumably because he doesn't think abortion is murder. But why not? He didn't say.
>>And please check your zeal because I don't see a correlation between his stumbling in his speech and his issues on being pro-choice.>>
I don't see any correlation there either. I didn't propose any correlation in my blog. Those two points were completely unrelated.
>>I state all this, because in this race, people are going to do a lot of spinning.>>
I take it that you're encouraging me to tell the whole story, to not take statements out of context, and to not be unduly biased. I appreciate that encouragement, and I totally agree with you.
But I think I accurately represented what Obama said (I took it straight from the transcript and provided video), and I don't think I took this quotation out of context. I think he really meant to say that he doesn't know when a fetus becomes a person with human rights. And I'm criticizing that statement of his in this way:
Obama said he thinks A.
If he thinks A, he should do B.
But he doesn't do B.
So his actions contradict his beliefs. He's irrational.
I think you're most concerned by the fact that I didn't mention that Obama later said he'd like to reduce the number of abortions. That's a fair point, and maybe I should have mentioned that. However, even that position doesn't make sense, given that he consistently votes to keep abortions legal and easily available, to keep Roe v. Wade intact, etc.
>>To put it bluntly, let the world do their spinning, let us christians try to learn from each other.>>
I agree with you, and I thank you for holding me accountable. Please continue to do that for me.
>>this blog was semi-fair tamb but not completely because you attacked something that had nothing to do with the issue (his stumbling speech) and you didn't mention his points at the end of his speech (about trying to decrease abortions).>>
Well, I don't know if I "attacked" his stumbling speech. I thought I just recorded my opinion about it. I was struck that a man so charismatic and eloquent on script could falter so badly off script. That wasn't related to the points about abortion at all. And I think it's fine to have multiple independent points in one blog. I don't see how that makes my blog unfair.
"I think you're most concerned by the fact that I didn't mention that Obama later said he'd like to reduce the number of abortions. That's a fair point, and maybe I should have mentioned that. However, even that position doesn't make sense, given that he consistently votes to keep abortions legal and easily available, to keep Roe v. Wade intact, etc."
Yeah, that was one of my main points. It seems to me that Obama's approach is to eliminate it by an approach other than vetoing it. He talked about the suffering and though that someone who does that goes through. He may try to tap into that and convince them differently because you can ban the clinics but people will still find a way to abort their child. Maybe they need to be talked out of it. And maybe this is his approach because, as he stated, Bush has been pro-life and the problem is still growing.
And I apologize, the word "attacked" was a little loaded. It was your opinion. He most likely stumbled because he was sitting in front of a pro-life crowd. You saw how the crowd cheered when McCain answered the pastor's question in step!
Above everything, I really appreciate your humility tamb because though we disagree here, I am SO happy we can learn from each other and not throw ignorant insults at each other! Thank you for leading the way, brother! I really mean it! Thanks! And I do see more of where you are coming from. I hope I was clear enough for you to see where I was coming from.
>>It seems to me that Obama's approach is to eliminate it by an approach other than vetoing it.>>
I'm all for that sort of persuasion ("moral suasion" as William Lloyd Garrison called it), but I don't see why we can't have both. Unlike the early abolitionists, we are actually in a position to make our view the law of the land. And if Obama becomes President, he will be in a great position to make it the law of the land. So why not pass anti-abortion laws, in addition to the 'moral suasion'? Why not do both?
If abortion really is murder, then this situation is even worse than the slavery that once marred our country. We're actually legally permitting the systematic murder of millions of people (if abortion is murder). I think that calls for (way) more than just 'moral suasion', just as the Nazis called for more than just a stern talking to.
So why does Obama only advocate the moral suasion, and oppose anti-abortion legislation? Why not both? It doesn't make sense to me.
>>He may try to tap into that and convince them differently because you can ban the clinics but people will still find a way to abort their child.>>
This reasoning is highly suspicious to me. After all, we wouldn't buy it in the case of guns, right? "If someone wants to commit an act of gun violence, he'll find a way to get a gun. So there's no point in putting legal restrictions on gun ownership." No, that reasoning is not compelling. But if it's not compelling in the case of gun violence, why think it's compelling when it comes to abortion?
>>He most likely stumbled because he was sitting in front of a pro-life crowd.>>
I agree that the less-than-friendly crowd probably exacerbated the problem, but I've noticed the same phenomenon in front of other audiences. He's just slow, halting, awkward, and very vague when he improvises answers to tough, unexpected questions. It's a stark contrast to the speech-giving Obama who draws huge crowds and inspires spontaneous fits of weeping.
>>I really appreciate your humility tamb because though we disagree here, I am SO happy we can learn from each other and not throw ignorant insults at each other!>>
Well thanks, that means a lot to me. I also appreciate the productive conversation. I think the humility comes from going to graduate school in philosophy surrounded by walking brains and being wrong all the time.
"It's a stark contrast to the speech-giving Obama who draws huge crowds and inspires spontaneous fits of weeping."
I support him, but even I have to admit that the "spontaneous fits of weeping" is over the top for people to do! Is he Michael Jackson or something! LOL!
Man, on the abortion issue, you raise great points. My only question is, and this is honestly a question because I do not know, but has Bush been able to get abortions banned anywhere in the country? If not, this may be why he has abandoned that approach, and I am not certain if he is sure it is murder. We may end up agreeing to disagree here, but this conversation has opened my mind to another way of looking at things. I hope my conversation was enlightening enough to help you see it a little differently as well.
My main goal as well though is to try and thwart that perception we talked about earlier: that Obama is for aborting children when he does not appear to be. It is clear you do not have that perception, but I believe most pro-lifers do and that perception is stopping them from hearing some of the good things he has to say.
You know what I'm saying? It is in our nature to get caught on words and then react automatically. A perfect example is the famous four letter word that is splattered all over this country on advertisement boards: F-R-E-E. That sparks us to automatically check something out, and then find out that it is far from free! That's what I believe happened with Obama going Pro-Choice, it sparks that automatic criticism that wouldn't have been there if he would have abstained. Now it seems like he is trying to back out of it, but it is too late.
And, in all fairness, him "taking a side" like this did not help the perception that he is for abortion. I don't know if he could have abstained but he should have if he could have (try saying that three times fast!). It is very clear that he does not have a lot of knowledge about this subject.
But it is clear you do tamb, so I will concede! LOL! But yeah, I really do enjoy the conversation and I look forward to hearing your response!
Hi Joel,
Thanks for another reply. You said:
>>has Bush been able to get abortions banned anywhere in the country? If not, this may be why he [Obama] has abandoned that approach, and I am not certain if he is sure it is murder.>>
I don't know if there have been any federal laws passed that restrict abortion. However, Bush did put some conservative justices on the Supreme Court, which will go a long way towards limiting or even reversing the trend towards pro-choice legislation.
>>My main goal as well though is to try and thwart that perception we talked about earlier: that Obama is for aborting children when he does not appear to be.>>
I think you're right to point that out. Obama (like the rest of us) is not pro-abortion. But unlike some of us, he's pro-choice.
>>It is clear you do not have that perception, but I believe most pro-lifers do and that perception is stopping them from hearing some of the good things he has to say. You know what I'm saying?>>
I agree that some really zealous pro-life advocates are unable to hear the good things that are said by their pro-choice opponents. And probably vice-versa. And I think you're right to point that out and try to combat it.
>>And, in all fairness, him "taking a side" like this did not help the perception that he is for abortion.>>
Well, he did explicitly say he's not pro-abortion. Nobody likes abortions, just like nobody likes infanticide. The difference is that some people think women should have a legal right to abortions, and others don't think they should have that legal right (just as they don't have a right to commit infanticide). I hope that's more clear now.
Obama said that Jesus' maxim "whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me" should apply to victims of poverty, sexism and racism. How does he apply it to unborn babies?
Well, he says he isn't sure when babies get human rights. He can't "answer that question with specificity." Presumably he doesn't believe that fetuses are people with human rights. Otherwise, he'd be pro-life. That's not to say that he believes fetuses are not people with human rights. He may just be agnostic on the issue. That's what his statement seems to imply.
But if he really is agnostic on the issue, why say that he's pro-choice? Why does he work to keep abortions legal? Why not play it safe, and outlaw them (if he really isn't sure whether abortion is murder or not)? It doesn't make sense.
What would make sense of his pro-choice actions is that he really does believe that fetuses are not persons with human rights. And then, of course, he doesn't think that Jesus' suggestion applies to fetuses; fetuses wouldn't be among "my brothers," on this view.
But if he really does believe that fetuses are not people with human rights, the answer he gave to Rick Warren was very misleading and deceptive.
What is crazy to think about is the fact that this world has us in such a daze, many don't even know what to do anymore as Christians. We are literally confused about what is right and what is wrong. We think that our Presidents are going to solve problems of morality or input legislation to make this nation more Christian. Why don't we start worrying about ourselves and our own actions.
Why don't we seek God in everything we do and strive strive strive to be like Christ? We however take no responsibility for our own actions and relegate our own opinions to politicians. If everyone on this post agrees so strongly that abortion is immoral, we should start doing something about it. Actively defend the morals you say you believe in by doing more than just having an opinion.
We as a group, as far as I see it in America, are so convoluted and steeped in materialism, consumerism and comfort, that we can't even see where we turned off the path from Jesus. We are so crushed underneath bad theology and laziness and self reliance, that we don't practice Christianity anymore, we practice dogma.
Who is desperatly relying on the One who said that the last will be first and the first, last? The One, who in Matthew 19, told the man the after he had fulfilled all the commandments to sell all he had, give the money to the poor, and follow Him. Why aren't we taking what was said seriously? Why aren't we taking action and making Christianity a lifestyle instead of an opinion?
Stop relying on public leaders to make change and start relying on the individual to make it by their everyday choices. Looking back in history, change was made by those who took no account of how many were behind them, only of the fact that they were going to make the choice, everyday, to do the right thing. Martin Luther King Jr. said in regards to change that, “We must use the weapon of love.” Looking at the way the world has become, this seems to be the only way to bring about true Christly change as it harms no one, yet serves all in the process.
Forgive my harshness, I am a sinner yet I know the truth that Jesus is, and it is just an amazing thing. In all of this I am speaking to myself as well.
Thanks Ridley. We need to hear all perspectives, I believe that is how we help each other.
The pastor of the church I go to was talking recently about how we can get back to doing by remembering. He was talking about sharing the Good News (the mystery of the cross), and how when we think back to how that impacted us, the truth will flow out; we will not be able to hold it in. I prefer this approach because it helps me not to force it. I think the same applies with speaking out.
My post has been voted down, probably because it was judgemental and out of line. Ouch. I deserve it. Thanks for the response Joel P.
However, Joel P, I don't quite understand what you mean by remembering? Do you mean just thinking about the crucifixion will be enough to spurn us into action? Let me know!
Yeah, the memory of how it felt when you were changed and saved. For example, I remember my first few days after being saved, I would go beneath a tree on my college campus and read almost all through the book of Job! It's like Jesus said in Revelation when he talked to the church about not forsaking their first love. He told them to do the things they did at first.
I was saying, let your pleasant remembrance of the cross lead you to do whatever good deed you do (an abortion petition or whatever). That way you accomplish it with a good conscience and with a pure heart and motive.
That's what I have found to help me.
And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee, and teeming with souls shall it ever be.