The culture warrior thinks he is battling against a dangerous foe that has nothing but evil intent and utter destruction in mind. He sees everything in the starkest terms possible, exaggerating every piece of news into a battlefield of light and darkness.

Culture warriors on the left claim that the religious right is waging a “war on women.” Perhaps you’ll agree with me that that idea is laughable, but I suspect it’s the only thing you’ll agree with.

On the right, you’ve got people who find it possible to claim both that Obama is “the leader of the pro-choice movement” and also that he immediately broke his promise to pass FOCA. Such culture warriors are adept at ignoring contradictions in their thinking.

The truth is that Obama deals with abortion the way almost every national leader does. It’s a nice way to fire up the party’s base when popularity is flagging. Presidents don’t harbor fiery ambitions about abortion one way or another. They want military victories and landmark legislation. They want to make lasting marks on history.

I doubt Obama has given much thought to abortion except to feel good about “empowering” women by recognizing their “right” to choose. It’s nonsense, but a lot of people on the left believe it. Like most liberals, I doubt he’s allowed himself to really see how horrific abortion is and horrific its death toll has been.

But Obama’s blindness still doesn’t mean that he thinks babies are punishment or that they should die unattended. Thinking that Obama is coldblooded may make you feel even more righteous, but the truth matters. It matters what Obama actually said, and it matters that most evil comes out of blindness rather than out of malevolence.

To become the leader of the pro-choice movement, in July of 2008, he went before NARAL (With whom Obama had earned with his votes in Illinois to deny babies who survived medical attention a 100% approval rating–but that must just be little old me lying yet again because a guy who wanted to help those who survived abortions would never, ever have a 100% approval rating with NARAL would they?)- Obama promised,

“The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act,”

This, thankfully, was one of Obama’s first broken promises as President. But look at FOCA -from WIKI and see what Obama was promising NARAL he was going to do to the unborn on behalf of reproductive justice:

The Freedom of Choice Act (H.R. 1964/S. 1173) was a bill in the 110th United States Congress which “declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child; terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or terminate a pregnancy after viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.”

It prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from denying or interfering with a woman’s right to exercise such choices; or discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.

It also authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action.”

Obama is in every way a member of the pro-choice movement. His only thought is for the so-called right of women over their bodies. This makes him wrong, but it doesn’t mean that he thinks of babies as punishment or that he wants children to die after an attempted abortion. Your attempts to distort his statements are transparent.

“It does the pro-life cause no credit when you persist in spreading lies like these two. Every fair reading of Obama’s record agrees that his words have been taken out of context and distorted.”

*Sigh* Lies? Taken out of context and distorted? Really? Really? Alright, let’s go over this yet again.

“When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include — which should include abstinence education and teaching the children — teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include — it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

Admittedly, Obama was off-teleprompter when he spoke of needing an abortion for a hypothetical grandchild of his. In college we were all taught such window to the soul fits the textbook definition of a classic Freudian slip. Was Freud wrong? Well, the only way one cannot believe Obama’s off-the-cuff remarks about aborting his hypothetical grandchild, is to look carefully at Obama’s legislative record with pregnancy and abortion. Now we can go down the rat hole of Obama’s record in Illinois or we can go down the rat hole of the HHS mandate, but First Things does that almost every day. We just witnessed a stellar empty chair performance by that great champion of the unborn — Barack Obama, let’s revisit an earlier empty chair perfromance that pretty much makes the cut and dry case that what I said was about the great champion of the unborn Barack Obama not anywhere close to being a lie. Again, what I said,

“Babies who survive abortions deserve and need to be given medical care. Barack Obama does not believe this. Obama does not.”

From NRO Above My Pay Grade Four Years Later:

“Four years ago yesterday, on August 16, 2008, then-senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain joined Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., for the ‘Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency.’

“The most memorable moment of the evening, by far, came when Pastor Warren asked Senator Obama about his views on human life.

“Coming only a few days after his notorious remarks about bitter midwesterners clinging to their guns and religion, Obama’s now infamous response was but one in a long line of comments and gestures that have come to exemplify that galling blend of condescension and nonchalance that, for many, define this president.

“Yet the flippancy of Obama’s response — that answers to such questions are, ‘above my pay grade’ — overshadowed a very important and revealing aspect of his answer. Or rather, lost in the controversy about the tone of Obama’s response was the question that was actually asked.

“Everyone seems to remember Warren’s question as ‘When does human life begin?’ This is probably because that is the question Obama (flippantly) answered. But that wasn’t the question. What Pastor Warren did ask was a much more direct question, a question much less easily obfuscated by the supposed vagaries of science or theology: ‘At what point does a baby get human rights?’

“Taken at face value, that’s not even a question about abortion — unless there’s some reason to assume a ‘baby’ is unborn. As Warren asked it, the question was not a matter of science or religion. It was (and is) a question about the legal and moral status of certain acknowledged members of the human community.

“In other words, it is a fundamentally political question and points directly to the fundamental political question: Who is, and who is not, a member of the community? No serious politician, still less a president, can be indifferent to such a question.

“Moreover, it is a question that has actual legal significance — beginning with the Constitution which, while it may be silent on the status of unborn persons, speaks explicitly about ‘born’ persons. Ignoring or dodging the question of when life begins is one thing; ignoring or dodging the question of who has protected rights under the lawas it actually exists right now is something else entirely.

“So when does a human baby get rights? When she’s born? When she turns one? When she gets tenure?

“Most people who aren’t Peter Singer would agree that, whatever the biological, moral, or legal status of the unborn child, a live newborn human has human rights and is deserving of protection. Heck, that’s something about which even NARAL agrees.

“So the ‘easy’ pro-choice answer to Warren’s question is that a baby gets human rights ‘at birth.’ While many (myself included) find that answer deeply inadequate and even arbitrary with respect to what the baby actually is — i.e., a living member of the human species — such an answer at least pertains to a significant event; one traditionally weighted with immense spiritual, moral, and social significance.

“’Birth’ is also an answer that more or less accords with current U.S. law, including the Roe regime. In this country, life’s consistent legal protection begins at birth. So unless one wants to concede that the United States’s defense of basic human rights falls short by failing to protect the human rights of unborn humans — an awkward admission for someone who favors abortion rights — ‘birth’ is a nice, safe answer.

“Of course, even if he had wanted to answer Rick Warren’s actual question, ‘birth’ wasn’t an answer Barack Obama could have given without putting himself in a very tricky spot.

“If a baby gets human rights at birth, then Barack Obama has voted to deny human rights. As a state senator, Obama actively opposed the Illinois Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, refusing to grant legal protections to living, breathing, post-birth babies — regardless of whether they were born as the result of labor (premature or otherwise) or induced abortion. In other words, Obama explicitly denied the extension of legal protection for basic human rights to babies who have already been born.

“As Peter Kirsanow wrote four years ago (before Saddleback, I might add):

‘If there was ever a question that goes directly to a candidate’s capacity for compassion, it’s “At what point is a baby entitled to be treated as a human being?’…”

As President, Obama has authored the most sweeping reforms of abortion since 1973.

What has he done to protect those who survive abortion?

““Should abortion ever be returned to the States, each State will decide what their abortions laws will be according to how each State has determined such laws are crafted. I don’t decide a thing. Neither do you”

This is a crazy argument.”

Crazy?

Try Federalism.

“Barack Obama believes women who have unplanned pregnancies are being “punished by a baby. Babies who survive abortions deserve and need to be given medical care. Barack Obama does not believe this.”

It does the pro-life cause no credit when you persist in spreading lies like these two. Every fair reading of Obama’s record agrees that his words have been taken out of context and distorted.

Obama sees every abortion question as an issue of women’s choice. He’s wrong to frame these questions in this way, and the result of his blindness has been more dead babies. Lies like the ones you’re spreading turn Obama into monster when in fact he exhibits a more run-of-the-mill sort of blindness.

When the loudest pro-life voices trumpet evident falsehoods, the whole cause suffers.

“My view is there are at least 2 if not 3 victims with every abortion. The child first and foremost, the mother and yes, even the father. Barack Obama does not hold this view”

The problem with Obama is that he thinks of women as the chief victim and believes that the remedy is abortion. He has such low expectations of women that he believes he can’t hold them to the higher standard of commitment before sex.

“Should abortion ever be returned to the States, each State will decide what their abortions laws will be according to how each State has determined such laws are crafted. I don’t decide a thing. Neither do you”

This is a crazy argument. Who do you think is electing the legislature that will make abortion laws if it isn’t citizens like you and David?

“I said nothing about severe sanctions. Please respond to what I wrote: Again, I am not talking about prison. I am talking about at least a token penalty—probation, counseling, community service at a crisis pregnancy center.”

I think you’re right about two things. First, all women who seek or succeed at abortion should receive at least counseling and intervention and at most felony convictions, depending on the circumstances.

Second, most pro-lifers are inconsistent in not seeking sanctions against women, evidence that, once again, the culture war has driven people to stand odd stands.

What sanctions would you recommend since you “don’t condone abortion”?

“No, because I don’t think abortion sends people on a slippery slope to other killing.”

Except for other abortions, of course. I don’t know many women who admit to having had an abortion, but that one close friend who has is adamant in denying that she did anything wrong. Otherwise, she is one of the more righteous people I know.

“I think it is time for pro-lifers to be realistic about why many women procure abortions. It is not because they can’t cope with a baby. It is because they don’t want the baby or the pregnancy”

I’m not sure what you make out of these facts. Can you be more explicit?

What I see is women and men who are seeking a little pleasure and intimacy from sex and have ended up with a baby, too. Wishing they could undo their mistake, they kill the baby.

When abortion was legalized, I don’t think anyone believed that women would kill this many babies.

David, Barack Obama believes women who have unplanned pregnancies are being “punished by a baby.”

I do not.

Babies who survive abortions deserve and need to be given medical care. Barack Obama does not believe this. He voted against it. Don’t try to blame the pro-lifers for his inability to be able to support the Illinois law. As president he could’ve crafted a law helped children who survived abortions. He chose not to.

I would have.

My view is there are at least 2 if not 3 victims with every abortion. The child first and foremost, the mother and yes, even the father.

Barack Obama does not hold this view.

Deciding if women should be prosecuted for having an illegal abortion is not even a real argument because abortion is not only completely legal in the country it is now free.

Should abortion ever be returned to the States, each State will decide what their abortions laws will be according to how each State has determined such laws are crafted.

I don’t decide a thing. Neither do you.

“I think most women who have abortions in the United States for one of the reasons I mentioned in a chart in an earlier message could carry the babies to term and give them up for adoption without drastically impacting their lives.”

This is the reality of pregnancy. It is 40 weeks. A woman recovers in 2 weeks – she’s given 6 weeks to cope with adjusting her life to care for the baby and at 6 weeks most babies are sleeping through at least 5 hours. Mentally she can focus at work.

If a woman is giving up her child, she can return to work after 2 weeks. It will be hard, just the hormone rush is horrible. But she can comfort herself by knowing she did the right thing, her baby is being loved and cared for and she will not carrying the horrible burden knowing she ended the life of her child to her own grave.

Clearly David you don’t.

Mrs. Jackson,

Interestingly, this is the pro-choice argument, as articulated by people like Barack Obama. It is interesting to see you two on the same page. I believe it is true some of the time and not true most of the time. I think most women who have abortions in the United States for one of the reasons I mentioned in a chart in an earlier message could carry the babies to term and give them up for adoption without drastically impacting their lives. Pregnancy is not a minor matter, but over the years I have worked with many pregnant women who have done their jobs until they were almost ready to deliver. In fact, one went into labor on the job, and another had the baby the day after she left for maternity leave. Say a woman is pregnant and does not want the baby. If she carries it to term and gives it up for adoption, she may miss work or school from perhaps six to eight weeks. It is not a small thing, but for a great many women, it is not like being caught in a trap and needing to chew off a leg. It is not enough of a burden to justify murder.

Ian,

I said nothing about severe sanctions. Please respond to what I wrote:

Again, I am not talking about prison. I am talking about at least a token penalty—probation, counseling, community service at a crisis pregnancy center. Just something!

The woman in the UK did not procure an abortion. She induced it with drugs in her last month of pregnancy. Abortions after 24-weeks are illegal (with exceptions) in the UK. I know that self-induced abortion is legal in many places, including in New York. A woman was arrested in New York City very late in 2011 for drinking an herbal potion and having a miscarriage. The case was dismissed for lack of evidence.

Straight question, David: Do you agree with Mother Teresa’s point that abortion is the greatest destroyer of peace today?

No, because I don’t think abortion sends people on a slippery slope to other killing. I do, however, think Mother Teresa accurately reflects the Catholic view that abortion is the murder of children by their mothers. Pope John Paul II said something similar. And yet the arguments continue that women not only should not be legally responsible for abortion, but they should not be morally responsible. Mrs. Jackson provides us with this quote:

What woman *wants* an abortion?

Frederica Mathewes Green said it best:

“No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.”

Aside from psychopaths, few people commit first-degree murder because they want to kill the way they want to own a Porsche or eat an ice cream cone. They do it because they are in a tough situation and they want to get out of it. Are they not responsible?

Note this chart:
Social Reasons (given as primary reason)
- Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%
- Feels she can’t afford baby 23%
- Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%
- Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%
- Feels she isn’t mature enough 7%
- Interference with education/career plans 4%
- Parents/Partner wants abortion <1%
- Other reasons <6.5%
TOTAL: 93%

I think it is time for pro-lifers to be realistic about why many women procure abortions. It is not because they can't cope with a baby. It is because they don't want the baby or the pregnancy.

Why does the Catholic Church excommunicate a woman who procures abortions if “she wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg”?

The message it seems to me the pro-life movement wants to send is that it is not wrong to procure an abortion, only to perform one. Under any laws I have seen proposed by pro-lifers, women in the United States will continue to have a right to abortion. If the laws are successful, it will just be more difficult for them to procure abortion.