FutureChurch

The President began his address with a call for common ground, noting that the generation represented by the young Notre Dame graduates would face daunting challenges. "Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone," said Mr. Obama. "Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and greater understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history."

Yet, even as he called for common ground, he also warned: "We’re not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable sometimes." Everyone knew that the President was referring to abortion. Once again, he called for common ground. "That’s when we begin to say, 'Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.'"

In virtually every way imaginable, the Notre Dame speech represents the quintessential Obama. By now, Americans should understand that this President is going to take positions and shape policies that are at odds with the sanctity of human life. He has already done this with respect to federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research and, as a candidate he pledged to do far more -- even to sign the Freedom of Choice Act if passed by Congress.

At the same time, the President wants to claim common ground and respect for those who differ with him on these issues. He calls for others to do the same:

I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Mr. Obama went on to call for "Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words." In the end, the President's comments were entirely about how Americans should discuss or debate abortion. There was no serious consideration of abortion itself. President Obama merely talked about talking about abortion.

This was a moral evasion and an insult to the importance of the issue. If the President had actually addressed the issue of abortion -- if he had actually even offered a defense or rationale for his own position -- he would have dignified the issue. Instead, Mr. Obama issued what amounted to a call for civility.

When the President called for Americans to agree that, while differing on abortion, "we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually," he failed to make clear why this is so. If the unborn baby is not a person who possesses an intrinsic right to life, why is the decision to abort so "heart-wrenching?" If the fetus is just a collection of cells, why the angst? Furthermore, does the fact that a decision is "heart-wrenching" make it right or rational?

When the President acknowledged that, in the end, the two positions on abortion are irreconcilable, he was on more solid ground. Both sides frame the issue as a question of rights -- specifically a woman's "right" to control her reproductive destiny by any means, including abortion vs. the unborn child's right to live. The weakness of the pro-abortion (or "pro-choice") position becomes evident at this point. The claimed right of control over reproduction is not commensurate with another person's right to live, and not to be killed in the womb.

If President Obama had actually spoken of abortion itself, rather than addressing abortion only as an issue of controversy, he would have found himself defending the indefensible, which explains why he avoids this discussion at all costs. Yet, now that he is President, he cannot get by with claiming that this question is "above my pay grade."

The President also called for a certain humility on contested issues. "And this doubt should not push us away our faith," argued the President. "But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness." In itself, this is a good and responsible warning. But, as President Abraham Lincoln made clear in his second inaugural address, avoiding arrogance and self-righteousness does not mean failing to take a clear and costly stand.

This President is entirely predictable on the issue of abortion and related issues of human life, such as embryonic stem cell research. He is framing policies that are completely consistent with what he said and promised during his campaign. It is embarrassing to see some evangelicals who claim to be pro-life running public relations for the Obama Administration's policies and positions. It is not uncivil to protest the President's positions as subversive of human dignity and the sanctity of human life.

At the University of Notre Dame President Barack Obama talked about talking about abortion. One day, he will have to talk about abortion itself. He will put that day off as long as possible.

Look Graeme I will not argue about a need to be civil however I am concerned at how he talks about issues, as if our greatest aspiration should be to talk about issues rather than honestly engage the differences between them. Important issues like abortion and embryonic (not adult) stem cell research.

I am even more concerned that he creates a false dilemma in his speeches rather than addressing the core problem. His policy decisions are anything but nuanced or seeking a middle ground, but he seems to want us to believe he has found common ground.

For example, from his speech last Sunday:
"And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, bringing together men and women of principle and purpose -- even accomplishing that can be difficult. . .

. . . Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved."

We should not be drawn into such a spurious argument as not wanting to relieve the suffering of a child with a disease like diabetes. Of course we want that - the difference is that it should not come at the expense of another person's life. This does not make it "an admirable conviction." It makes it a core principle of protecting the weakest among us from those who are more powerful and would do them harm.
Content is ultimately crucial.

Take a look at what Joe Biden had to say on the topic of abortion during the 2008 campaign.

Kate Phillips of The New York Times explained Biden's predicament this way: "In the interview, Mr. Biden tried to walk the line between the staunch abortion-rights advocates in his party and his own religious beliefs. While he said he did not often talk about his faith, he said of those who disagree with him: “They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life — I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception.”"

Sen. Biden may have been attempting to "walk the line" politically, but a closer look at his actual argument is truly horrifying.

Sen. Biden says, and we must take him at his word, that he accepts as a matter of faith that human life begins at conception. But, he argues, he is perfectly willing to support a woman's right to choose to end that human life.
The killing of human life is called homicide. Murder is the willful taking of a human life. The senator has here stated that he believes abortion to be homicide, but he defends a woman's right to kill the unborn human life within her because he would not impose his beliefs about human life (and thus about homicide) on others.

In other words, if we take Biden seriously, he would defer to others who believe otherwise when it comes to the law.
How can he live with this? There are significant questions about the extent to which some matters can properly be legislated. But there is no question that the government - any government - must take a stand on the question of human life.

I believe Vice President Biden to be a serious man, and that is what is most frightening about this. Can a morally serious man really say that he believes that unborn babies are human beings, but that it should be a protected right to kill them?

You said in your first posting, “He [President Obama] showed that there is a way to engage in which we honour all viewpoints, and work towards outcomes that make sense for everyone”

I would submit that this is misguided, that he clearly does not share these concerns, and it is unclear what he means by respecting the point of view of those who rightly understand the issue as tax-supported homicide.

I believe that given the opportunity (however unlikely) I could say this in a rational and civil way to the man (without shooting anyone as you pointed out). Civility is possible, always possible but I refuse to be seduced by clever sounding but empty promises of fair minded debate that devalue every human life.

Embryonic stem cells are stem cells derived from an early stage embryo about five days post fertilization. They are derived from human embryos created by in vitro fertilization in IVF clinics. The use of human embryos for medical research is immoral.

There is every good reason to support research using adult stem cells or cells derived without the need for the destruction of the human embryo. Harvard university and the journal Science first reported breakthroughs in Adult stem cell research in 2005.