John, Barack and abortion

In US politics, especially during election times, abortion is a thorny issue. It has emerged -- or re-emerged -- in the current campaign a week ago when Rick Warren, the pastor of a California superchurch, talked with John and Barack about several issues.

First, from a French point of view, it can look disturbing that the two major candidates for the presidential election are being "interviewed" by a religious leader live on TV. I might come back to that subject in a subsequent post.

Today, however, I want to focus on the specific issue of abortion because some media decided to focus on this issue this past week.

The debate sometimes reaches hardly believable levels of stupidity, intolerance and extremism. Barack, as a pro-choice, that is as a defender of women's individual rights to abort, is accused by some of favoring infanticide or of being a baby-killing extremist. Some prominent conservative figures, like Sam Brownback, talk about a "holocaust" to refer to the 40 million abortions that have taken place since Roe v. Wade in 1973, Roe v. Wade is the Supreme Court decision that declared that abortion was a right, a decision that conservative activists want to see overturned.
This kind of talk can be deemed shocking in its own right. No other comment is necessary.

Last week, Rick Warren asked John and Barack their view on the question by asking the following question: "At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?" The question in itself, of course, is biased. The use of the term "baby" instead of "fetus" emotionally predetermines the answer that is morally right to give. Besides, no one wants to publicly say anything against "human rights."

Barack gave the following answer, according to editorialist Kathleen Parker: "Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade."

John gave the following answer, without thinking for a second after the question was asked: "At the moment of conception."

And that's where commentators stop and build whole stories and hour-long debates. That is how they report the candidates' answers to that tricky question. Of course, Barack is being derided and ridiculed for giving a hesitant answer, and an answer which is a way to escape the issue. The way Kathleen Parker transcribes the uhs and the you know-s is obviously a comment in itself on how Barack is afraid of confessing he is pro-choice.

The problem is these commentators are plainly dishonest and are not courageous enough to look beyond their own personal views of the issue.

First of all, Barack is talking in front of a Christian audience whom he knows condemn abortion. So, of course, he is probably a bit nervous.

Besides, Barack is in fact the one who gives the most complete and intellectually valid answer. How can anyone be as self-confident, even arrogant -- or even to use the terminology of the those who call themselves pro-life, god-like -- enough to answer, in the most assertive way, without blinking, such a difficult question? People have debated for decades about the issue of when life starts and when the limit should be to allow or forbid abortion, and John, in the fraction of a second, solves the issue and thinks the answer he gives is enough to conclude the debate.

John proceeds to say that he has a "25-year record of pro-life policy in the Senate" and that his presidency will be a "pro-life presidency." That does not say much of abortion per se, philosophically, theologically, socially, not even politically. It only says that John has been for 25 years as self-confident and arrogant about this very complex issue as he is today and he does not plan to change.
Besides, John, calling yourself "pro-life" when you are ready to send soldiers be killed in Iraq for 100 years if necessary, is sadly ironic.

On the contrary, Barack actually addressed the issue. After he said that talking about abortion theologically or scientifically was "above my pay grade" -- in which he is right of course, since he is neither a theologian nor a scientist and so like most of us, he cannot have a definitive theological or scientific answer about abortion -- he addressed the issue socially, which is what political and social officials should do, since abortion is a social issue.

Barack first concedes that there is a moral and ethical dimension to the issue. So he does not condemn people who call themselves "pro-life" as Christian fundamentalists. Some pro-choice advocates do that, and they are wrong, because it is certainly not helping the debate.

Then, he clearly syas that he is pro-choice and that he believes in Roe v. Wade. He does not beat about the bush, he does not hide a position that he knows is risky for him. He explains why he is pro-choice: "I don't think women make these decisions casually." No, they don't, and it is an insult to them to dismiss the issue as casually as John did. Many women who abort do so because their pregnancy endangers their life. Very importantly, Barack says that his being pro-choice does not mean he is pro-abortion. This is too often the ridiculous equation that the advocates against abortion make: pro-choice = pro-abortion. You can personally be unfavorable to abortion and yet believe that individuals should be free to choose whether they personally want to abort or not. Pro-choice advocates do not demonstrate in front of maternities brandishing signs that say "Abort! Abort!"

Barack asks the critical question: "What can we do to reduce the number of abortions?"
The US ranks at the top of the chart for the highest number of teenage pregnancies. If young girls knew what they were doing when they have sex for the first time, if they were not afraid -- because of predominant hypocritical taboos -- of asking and learning about their sexuality, they would know better than getting pregnant in high school and aborting without telling anyone about it because of the guilt they would be made to feel.
It is high time the US woke up and smelled the stench of the hypocrisy of all that.

Let's give the final words to Benjamin Franklin: "If mine, then, is a religious Offence, leave it, Gentlemen, to religious Punishments. You have already excluded me from all the Comforts of your Church Communion: Is not that Sufficient? You believe I have offended Heaven, and must suffer eternal Fire: Will not that be sufficient? What need is there, then, of your additional Fines and Whippings? I own, I do not think as you do; for, if I thought, what you call a Sin, was really such, I would not presumptuously commit it."

He wrote this about 250 years ago as fictional Miss Polly Baker talking to her judges. Ironcially, she was being judged for having children out of wedlock. Times change. The hypocrisy of the condemning moral voices do not.