.jpg)
President Obama gave his commencement address at Notre Dame University yesterday with the typical tactful, diplomatic approach we've come to expect from our Commander-in-Chief.
Speaking at the graduation ceremony must have been daunting--Notre Dame is a Catholic University where many, if not most, of the students and administration hold views that conflict with the President's liberal agenda. His speech was interrupted several times by anti-abortion hecklers and protesters but, by all accounts, he met the challenge with grace-- acknowledging differences in opinion yet choosing to bring the crowd together by emphasizing common human values and ideals.
It was refreshing to see the contentious and divisive issue handled so well. Perhaps his respectful attitude can serve as an example to those who prefer to build barriers between people with differing opinions rather than working together to find common ground. As with most controversial issues, neither the pro-life/pro-choice arguments are clear cut. The issue isn't black and white; it's a very hazy, cloudy sort of gray. And if I had to choose between the strength of the two arguments, I'd deftly dodge the bullet by saying that BOTH sides of the debate are correct. It is difficult to choose between two very valid positions.
Abortion IS the horrible, tragic destruction of a human life, regardless of how small. As someone whose pregnancies were eagerly awaited and much celebrated, I marvelled at the miraculous development of a new person every time I saw my future children on the ultrasound screen. Anyone who doesn't appreciate the profound miracle of the whole process is either uneducated or is deliberately choosing not to think about it. And anyone who is cavalier about abortion or uses it as a means of contraception needs a serious morality check. I've heard it said that the measure of a society lies in how it treats its weakest, most helpless citizens, and a culture that takes the decision of whether or not to end a pregnancy lightly isn't one I'd want to live in.
Fortunately, I don't believe we live in such a society. The pro-choice folks, on the whole, think abortion is just as tragic as I do--and that the procedure should truly be a last resort for women in desperate circumstances. The difference between the two camps is that those in favor of a woman's right to choose are more willing to take into account all of the other factors of a pregnancy and the effect it would have on the mother's life. Her well-being, after all, should be the primary concern. Is the mother in a position to care for a child, as well as herself? Is the pregnancy a result of rape or incest? What would bearing a child do to the mother's emotional state? Does she believe a baby would enrich her life or devastate it? Of course, it's hard for most of us to imagine a child being anything but a blessing, but we certainly have no way of knowing or understanding the full picture of the mother's world.
To argue that a woman can just "give up" an unwanted child for adoption doesn't take into account the possible effects on a woman's psyche decades down the road. Of course, it's a wonderful, viable solution to an unplanned pregnancy. But it might not be for everyone. No one--not the pro-lifers nor the government--has the right to force a woman to make that decision. Ultimately, it is solely the decision of the woman (and possibly the man) involved. The consequences and long-term repercussions of whatever decision she (or they) make are hers alone.
Human life is sacred--not only the life of an unborn child, but also the life of the mother. We do not have the right to decide on behalf of the mother what kind of impact bearing a child will have on her life--that is solely for her to judge. I don't believe we can morally claim that the rights of a potential child take precedence over the rights of an already-living, conscious adult.
The abortion debate is such a contentious issue precisely because of its complexity. For this reason, we must err on the side of granting individuals the liberty to make this difficult decision for themselves. The consequences of whichever choice a woman facing an unintended pregnancy makes will be hers and hers alone; and it will be an act that is solely between her and whatever higher power or divine spirit she may (or may not) believe in. While I can empathize with and understand the motivation of the pro-life movement, it is intrusive and self-righteous for strangers to believe a woman's personal, private choice should be any of their business, regardless of how well-intentioned they may be.
Comments
I too seek the common ground as president Obama suggests but your title doesn't match your thinking. You say both sides are right but your article clearly states a position that favors ones side over the other. You should say what you need to say and mean what you write. It seems a bit disingenuous to espouse one title and write a completely different article.
Excellent article, extremely well done. Obama says the Pro-choicers and Pro-lifers need to stop demonizing each other, and that's actually what your article is saying as well. It's nice to see someone looking at both sides for a change.
Well done. Although I can see why Jeff believes you supported one side over the other, from my perspective, your bottom line message was that nobody should be empowered to make a personal choice for someone else, and I fully support that view. What I believe is right for me cannot be the measure of what is right for anyone else.
I find your comments both simplistic and specious at best. Your arguments in favor of abortion ring hollow because we in the USA have done little if anything to curb the number of abortions. Our goverment forces us to utilize Federal tax dollars to fund special feminist advocates of abortion to literally end innocent life.
If you really believed everything you said in the above article you would agree that we need to immediately remove the Federal Government from the abortion debate. Last year this country consciously agreed to terminate the life of 1.29 million babies. At the very least we should do everything humanly possible to reduce the total number of abortions. Yet all we do is pay lip service to Pro Abortion Advocates--all of whom are directly affected and biased by the hundreds of millions of dollars flowing out of Washington DC to fund pro-abortion advocacy groups. How many of those 1.29 million were as a result of rape and incest????
Why don't we just tell the truth??--abortion is a good business for the tens of thousands of Feminists whose incomes are directly and indirectly derived by Abortion Advocacy.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!