As the dust from the Obama-Notre Dame controversy settles over the land, I am still puzzled by this honorary degree thing. I can understand, of course, why a great many pro-lifers, Catholics and others, were upset at seeing the most radically pro-abortion president in American history receive an honorary doctor of laws degree from the best known, most celebrated Catholic university in the country. But I do wonder about the decision of Arizona State University to withhold such an honor from the president when he gave the commencement address there, leaving our rookie president “only one for two,” in honorary degrees, as he noted when he spoke at South Bend.
 
Oh, I know the official reason. “His body of work is yet to come,” an ASU spokesman said, leaving us to wonder if that should be understood as a promise or a threat. But it seems pretty lame. The guy does have degrees from Columbia and Harvard, he’s been a “community organizer,” a law professor, a state senator and a U.S. senator. And even if he is kind of new to the job, he is the president of the United States. And the fact that he is the first African-American to hold that job adds a luster of historical significance to his record of achievements. I don’t know, but I would guess that somewhere along the line Arizona State has conferred an honorary degree or two on a person or persons with a less impressive biography.      
 
But the controversy over honoring Obama at Notre Dame was news and talk-show fodder ever since the choice of commencement speaker and honoree was announced in March. Whether that in any way influenced the decision at Arizona State, I don’t know.

What interests me more is what Obama had to say at Notre Dame about what is sometimes called the “culture war.” Concerning abortion, the president at least acknowledged that “at some level the differences are irreconcilable.” Yet he urged those on both sides to explore “at least the possibility of common ground.” And where might that be found?
 
“So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies,” he said. He did not say how, but it takes little imagination to see what he’s getting at. It’s the old argument that if we want fewer abortions, we should abandon all moral scruples against contraception. That gets applause from most audiences, including those at Notre Dame. Some theories—Malthusian warnings of overpopulation come to mind—go on living long after they’ve been slain by facts. The use of contraception has enjoyed growing popularity and social acceptance in the last 35 to 40 years, to the point where condoms are dispensed to students in many public schools. The number of abortions nationwide, meanwhile, has increased to numbers scarcely imagined at the time of the Roe v. Wade ruling of January 22, 1973. 
 
“Let’s make adoption more available. Let’s provide care and support for women who carry their children to term,” said Obama, collecting still more applause from the audience at Notre Dame. One wonders how women managed to “carry their children to term” before we had a president whose job now includes looking after the “care and support” of pregnant women. Making adoption more available seems a worthy goal. But I wonder if anyone at Notre Dame was rude enough to remind the president that champions of “gay rights” — most of them Obama supporters and voters — have influenced lawmakers to the point that Catholic Charities of Boston decided a few years ago to give up its adoption services to avoid a conflict with the Massachusetts anti-discrimination law. Catholic Charities could not place children with same-sex couples without violating Catholic moral teaching.
 
“Maybe we won’t agree on abortion,” the president said, “but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.” That is yet another applause line too often accepted uncritically. Nearly half of all abortions in the United States are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion, tens of thousands on women who have had three or more. It is not unreasonable to suspect that at least some women are making that decision somewhat “casually.”
 
The president called for civility, for carrying on the debate without demonizing one another. “Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction,” he said. “But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”
 
That seems reasonable. So does Obama’s call for “fair-minded words.” But while the debate goes on, however civil it may be, about 4,000 babies are being butchered or chemically burned to death in or partially out of their mother’s womb every day in the United States. And Barack Obama holds to the view that such should continue to be protected as a woman’s “constitutional right.” If that is the view of a “fair-minded” man, let us work without ceasing for a bias for life.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (6)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

58ttom said:

... When it comes to abortion, Obamas positions have not been one of a reasonable fair-minded individual. He is not only in favor of abortion at anytime for whatever reason but he is for letting a child, who has somehow survived the abortion, just lay there and suffer a horrible death. This man who is so concerned that terror suspects are not tortured does not share the same concern for an unborn child who in the late second trimester is sliced up piece by piece and torn from the womb, brains sucked out, all while the child suffers excruciating pain. I find it hard to believe is such a caring man, that he cares for the women. He appears to be as heartless as Satan himself. I reserve my applause and find nothing to admire in this person.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 22, 2009
Votes: +12

Lal Wynstrom said:

Abomination is the word... without need to play on Obama's name It was a complete abandonment of principle and an abomination to Catholic doctrine to allow the president to even step foot on Notre Dame grounds, much less to allow him a public forum from which both to speak these dialectic arguments and to receive honor for them. Father John Jenkins' request that the authorities arrest and remove those who exercised their 1st Amendment rights to protest this action was a further abandonment of righteous conduct. I applaud all those who went out to protest Obama being given a chance to corrupt not only the minds of the students of UND, but to stand up for the principle of life at all stages. To Dr. Alan Keyes, Randall Terry, and all others who went to jail to hold up righteousness, I thank you from the bottom of my heart and only wish I could have been there to be arrested with you.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 23, 2009
Votes: +8

Weed said:

same old same old i think we all know by now the "stuff" that barack obama is made of. he is duplicitous and self-serving, and i have yet to see anything truly heartfelt and sincere emanate from the man (or his wife for that matter). the real tragedy here is the failure of christians across all levels to take a stand. as pat buchanan pointed out, 54% of catholics voted for barack obama. either they do not understand the church's position on abortion and marriage, or they just don't care. will fr. jenkins be held accountable? probably not. it takes great men, men of honor and principle, men who are willing to sacrifice all, if need be, to do the right thing. we saw how so few so-called conservatives came to south bend to take a stand. where was pat buchanan, rush limbaugh, michael savage, sean hannity, anne coulter, and the power brokers of the catholic church? those who talk and write so passionately for the conservative cause. perhaps they were too busy watching their bank accounts grow to come out and set a real example. perhaps the only heros left are those interred in the earth, who gave all for what they believed in.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 23, 2009
Votes: +6

RichardR369 said:

	Notre Dame Notre Dame has shown it's true colors and no longer wishes to keep traditional Catholic values but instead wishes for Socialism.
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 23, 2009
Votes: +3

American83 said:

Sign of the Times? On the subject of Notre Dame, I cannot for the life of me understand why, A Catholic Institution with as much Grace and Aww, of not only Catholic's across these great United States but the world over, would make such a huge (and what I think a very simple/basic decision) mistake on one of, if not THE most basic black and white issue out the Catholic Church today. For a Church with a strong unwavering standpoint on PRO-life to hand over a prestigious Honorary Degree from a school such as Notre Dame to President Obama, regardless of the individuals position in Government or Business, is like having the NRA President Kayne Robinson, make Congressman John Conyers (D.-Mich) an Honorary life long member of the NRA. (Representative Conyers is probably the most vocal opponent of 2nd. Amendment rights in the United States Congress) My point is it does not make any since. I can only guess that this is a sign of the times today.

report abuse vote down vote up

May 24, 2009
Votes: +5

Pat Henry said:

	Same playbook, new QB For a compelling 2.5 hour expose of the population control agenda behind abortion, see Endgame. It is not "conspiracy theory," it is documented fact in the elite's own words. Watch free on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videop...nslavement Order your own DVD copy: http://infowars-shop.stores.ya...medvd.html
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 25, 2009
Votes: +2