Obama and Abortion

| Mon May. 18, 2009 3:31 PM PDT

Ramesh Ponnuru provides his take on Obama's graduation speech on Sunday in South Bend:

President Obama's speech at Notre Dame yesterday is another sign that pro-lifers are slowly winning the political battles over abortion. It was not the speech of a man who is confident that his position is right and popular....He didn't try to make the case for his views on abortion and related issues. He just plead for mutual understanding, civility, and the search for common ground.

....Pro-lifers often get annoyed when they see politicians with hard-line records in favor of legal and subsidized abortion talk, as Obama did, about how much he wants to reduce abortion. But that type of rhetoric, however little follow-through it generates, is itself a concession to the moral and political force of the pro-life case. The more politicians who favor unrestricted, subsidized abortion talk about what a tragedy it is, the more they undermine their own premises. If it's such a terrible thing, why fund it? Why not allow states to try different methods of discouraging it, including restrictions?

On one point, I think Ponnuru is right: some liberal politicians do have a habit of overdoing the "tragic, heartbreaking decision" rhetoric.  To the extent that this is a reflection of reality for the way some women feel, it's fine.  But it also shapes reality, and when it gets repeated too often it suggests that abortion should be a tragic, heartbreaking decision.  As Ponnuru says, that's inevitably a concession to the pro-life worldview.

The rest of his argument is flimsier, though.  Did Obama fail to make a positive case for reproductive rights?  Sure, but that's not a sign of weakness, just a sign of common sense and basic civility.  He was at Notre Dame, after all.  He wouldn't deliver a stemwinder about abortion rights on the steps of the Vatican either.

As for Obama's rhetoric about wanting to reduce abortion, that's been practically the party line in Democratic politics at least since Bill Clinton codified it as "safe, legal, and rare."  Dems have been talking that way for years and years now, and regardless of what you think about it, there's little evidence that it's a defensive reaction to long-term change in public opinion on abortion.  That's because there hasn't been any noticeable long-term change in public opinion on abortion.  Rather, it's a standard piece of political positioning designed to appeal to one group while not inflaming too many others.  There's really nothing very unusual about this.

Obama obviously feels that he (and the Democratic Party) can benefit by turning down the volume on the culture wars and marginalizing the extremist wing of the conservative movement.  Time will tell if he can do it.  But that's an aggressive pitch to broaden the Democratic tent, not a defensive crouch.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

Party of Death

Didn't Ramesh Ponnuru write a book where the thesis was we were going to keep getting attacked by the Taliban, who primarily hated our liberal values, unless we became more like them and started stoning gays and adulterers and abortionists to death? I always like to remember that he is a freedom hating terrorist symp when I contemplate whatever stupid thing he says. It is easier that way.

It's a shame Kevin, that

It's a shame Kevin, that Obama doesn't use the language of abortion of so many on your blogroll. Abortion on demand at any point throughout the pregnancy and for any reason whatsoever. You know damn well Kevin, that at Pandagon, at Shakesville, at Kathy G, at many other websites on your blogroll that women there are there to shout out about their five abortions and they are damned proud of it, and fuck any patriarchal man (that's Obama and Clinton) that suggests abortion should be rare. You may be right that the public hasn't wavered on abortion rights. Regardless of the idiots you blogroll, I think that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. But I do wonder if unlike you, other members of the public haven't heard enough from the Pandagonians, Shakespeare's sisters and Kathy Gs. God knows, you're too fucking gutless and chicken shit to call them out on it.

Don't be rude

This is honestly an incoherent, emotional point. Kevin's not responsible for calling out anyone for their language on abortion, whether or not they're in his blogroll. Also, it's absurd to contrast Obama's thoughtful, measured language about abortion with the language used by mostly anonymous people writing on a personal topic. In the same way that you just casually called Kevin, a person you certainly don't know, "fucking gutless and chickenshit", people bring high emotions to the topic of abortion. Writing for effect, they might use words or make sweeping conclusions that they wouldn't actually want as a matter of public policy. Ultimately, what do you want? You obviously despise some people who advocate for abortion rights, but you claim to support those rights as well. You start off by saying it's a shame that Obama doesn't use language that obviously enrages you. Maybe you're so angry you can't make any sense on the subject. My advice is: stop reading blogs that annoy you.

help unemployed Americans earn a living

Obama is willing to let those who want to force women into giving birth to children they do not want have the emotional high ground probably because he knows few laws are going to be passed prohibiting abortion while he is president. It is OK for now, but could be a potential future problem. Outlawing abortion, however, could help unemployed Americans earn a living providing illicit abortions. Becoming a black market abortionist could save a lot of homes from foreclosure in these difficult economic times.

Interesting last sentence

Interesting last sentence from an anonymous commenter!

Abortion isn't the issue

I don't think very many people approve of abortion, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether anti-abortion believers have the right to kill doctors and bomb abortion clinics and do other things to inflict their views on others. I think it is perfectly acceptable to be opposed to abortion. I think it is perfectly acceptable to support abortion. It is not acceptable for one to dictate to the other, and particularly not acceptable to resort to violence to do so. IMHO

alternate reality

Ponnuru seems to be writing about the speech he wanted Obama to give rather than the one Obama actually gave. A pretty standard behavior for a conservative writer. For those paying attention Obama used the controversy generated by those who wished to silence him to make the case that voices of those with differing views should be heard, but that those voicing their opinions must be respectful and be willing to listen. Interesting that this message was lost on many.

The abortion issue also is

The abortion issue also is front and center as Obama considers potential nominees to fill the vacancy left by the retirement this summer of Justice David Souter. Abortion opponents are determined to see Roe v. Wade overturned, but only four court justices out of nine have backed that position. Souter has opposed arguments for overturning the ruling. and considering what the president implies, we can have a guess who will be the winner in this hot issue debate.

*Didn't Ramesh Ponnuru write

*Didn't Ramesh Ponnuru write a book where the thesis was...* No, that was Dinesh D'Souza.

"it suggests that abortion

"it suggests that abortion should be a tragic, heartbreaking decision." What is the alternative, that abortion should be an utterly unemotional, easy decision? It is one thing to settle for abortion as the lesser of two evils, it is quite another to absolve it as a moral concern at all.

As the father of two early

As the father of two early 20s girls, I would hate to see them have an abortion and would do whatever I could to support a decision to not have an abortion. But to have the state legislate that they could not have an abortion, if they so chose, is an unwelcome intrusion into their lives. Maybe I am naive, but I see Obama's position as somewhat the same...he hates to see abortions but the way to reduce them is not to legislate them away.

praise and portray as doing public good

Abortion should be praised and portrayed as doing public good. When women choose not to have babies they do not want, they and the world are much better off.

seriously, ponnaru, the guy

seriously, ponnaru, the guy who thinks the taliban has good ideas.....i have no respect for any fundamentalist who want to take away any citizens right to privacy....thats what abortion is, an issue that is a non issue due to the fact that a women has the right to privacy and to privately consult with their physician....pro-lifers are losing the debate because the majority of people in my age gen (18-30) dont care about the debate....we think (18-30) its a stupid argument, just like gay marriage and drug prohibition....the problem for ponnaru is that the 18-30 crowd will get older (duh) and become the ones making policy......i know that this might not be the place but ponnaru and his ilk like Dnesh Dsouza (spelling, oops) are crazy.....dsouza in a debate with chris hitchens said he was glad england colonized and Christianized india even though hes relatives/ancestors were slaughtered in the process.......also, clearly the valium is inspiring this rant, ponnaru is pro life, but he supports the death penalty, (which is proven to have no deterrent effect on crime, i would know im a criminologist and have conducted massive amounts of research and did my masters disertation on the topic) which makes him the one thing i cant stand in this world, a hypocrite.

I find myself agreeing with

I find myself agreeing with tpx. Of for pete *^%*$%@ sakes. Ninety-some percent of abortions take place in the first 12 weeks (really 10 weeks because of the goofy way pregnancy weeks are counted). It's a tiny clump of cells up to a ping-pong ball at the end of the first trimester. Nothing an inch long can be considered a human being. That's just plain sentimental and silly. Anonymous #1. No one -- even me -- believes in abortion beyond viability. Don't lie.

Typographical Conventions

Anonymous, I tried to read your post, but frankly it was just too much work. When you don't use conventional punctuation and when you abandon all capitalization, it is just too difficult to follow your thought process. I know it is very hip to write in all lower case these days, but seriously, would it kill you to hit the shift key and to use a period every once in a while?

That was my bad.......I was

That was my bad.......I was so wasted on Valium when I started writing that proper punctuation and grammar was the last thing on my mind. I just wanted to make sure I put down everything that I wanted to say, cogent or not. Under the influence of Valium it made sense and looked good, but now I read it sober and its a big mess. Whoops.

Ego absolvo

I for one "absolve [abortion] as a moral concern at all." Women and/or their partners/husbands/whatever may, and should, put hard thought into whether or not they want to carry a pregnancy to term and raise or otherwise arrange an adequate life for a baby. But the abortion decision is not, contrary to how some zealots and theologians want to couch it, about "killing a baby." It's about aborting a fetus. I'm a father of four and grandfather of four and I never once seriously considered abortion because my wife and I were always on the same page about raising a family. But that would have been my only concern in weighing abortion. I recognize that a woman feels a more intimate connection with something growing inside her than a man who doesn't enjoy (so to speak) that function, which is why no male should ever prescribe how a woman should react to a pregnancy. But abortion is no different from having surgery to excise a tumor or swallowing powerful drugs to kill a tapeworm. The latter are life forms slowly growing in the body but nobody hesitates for a moment about removing them. Except by romantic analogy embryos and fetuses are not cute little babies any more than fish are sea kittens. The only reason we argue about abortion is that we disagree about when "human life" -- in some terminology a "soul" -- begins to inhere. I say at birth. The rest is romantic analogy.

Life clearly does not begin

Life clearly does not begin at birth. Babies are not "viable" until a year or so after birth. By your logic then, we should allow abortions of anything up until a walking infant forms. Babies before birth are just as viable as a baby at birth. So by your idiot logic, if you don't feel a baby having been born should be killed, then you cannot think a baby at 9 months should be killed. And yet of course, Kevin's blogroll, like you, just pretends it's fetuses and not babies. Seriously, a human fetus is the same as a tapeworm? You go try that logic out loud and see how many progressives flee from you. Let's get reality based here, mkay?

Trolls

The subject of abortion does bring the trolls out, doesn't it? There are people who can discuss the subject in a measured, realistic manner. Unfortunately, too few of them get involved in the dialog about abortion and leave the discussion to irrational mouth breathers. Abortion is only a symptom of a much larger problem, which is birth control. Fix the birth control problem and abortion really does become safe, legal and rare.

Nothing an inch long can be

Nothing an inch long can be considered a human being. That's just plain sentimental and silly. Well, no, it's actually rational and scientific. When it's an inch long it's already got a blood type, a nervous system, a brain, a heart, the beginnings of eyes, the beginnings of a skeletal system, etc. -- and of course its own, unique genetic blueprint. Humanness has nothing to do with size, and everything to do with DNA. If you want to kill it, far more honest to say it's justifiable homicide than to pretend it's not homicide. An embryo is a human being. A very very tiny human being, to be sure, but clearly a human being.

Humaness is all DNA?

"Humanness has nothing to do with size, and everything to do with DNA." Really? Our DNA is more than 98% identical to a chimpanzee's. Are chimpanzees 98% human? Moreover, what do we do with genetic chimeras, a rare situation in which one person ends up with two distinct DNA codes in their body. Are they two people or one? Fixation on DNA as the be-all and end-all of defining humanness is not a particularly helpful route for pro-lifers, especially as further genetics research increasingly demonstrates that its is our DNA that proves how closely related we are to other animals, rather than how unique homo sapiens is. A more ethically consistent position would be to oppose abortion, as well as the unnecessary killing of any sentient life. The other possibility is to argue for the sacredness of human life over all other life forms, which is a legitimate belief, but just that -- a belief. And just as Muslims and Jews cannot force me to stop killing pigs and eating their delicious cured belly meat because they "believe" pigs are unclean animals based on religious codes, people who believe fetal life is "sacred" cannot use secular laws to force women to carry pregnancies to term when they don't want to.

DNA of cancerous tumors in people is 100% human

The DNA of cancerous tumors in people is 100% human. Unwanted pregnancies are cancers for both women and society, and should be cut out.

Quote: "On one point, I

Quote: "On one point, I think Ponnuru is right: some liberal politicians do have a habit of overdoing the "tragic, heartbreaking decision" rhetoric. To the extent that this is a reflection of reality for the way some women feel, it's fine. But it also shapes reality, and when it gets repeated too often it suggests that abortion should be a tragic, heartbreaking decision. As Ponnuru says, that's inevitably a concession to the pro-life worldview." Good point. I disagree that the decision to have an abortion is necessarily tragic and heartbreaking. It is a serious decision. A sobering one. One doesn't make it without reflection or an understanding of the potential life. But it needn't be tragic or heartbreaking. Maybe I say that because nothing in life is sure. It is true that a fetus cannot grow into anything other than a human child, but that's only if it is successful in making that journey. Does that sound like a copout? Perhaps to those who think that potential for life is a sure thing. Some of us know different.

Wow

I'm pro-choice and an adopted infant before Roe v Wade, and the complete dismissal of tragedy in this post as far as choosing abortion is appalling. The point is that it's the woman's choice, that the state cannot dictate what she does with her body at a particular point in time in the development of a fetus, not that abortion should be thought of as casual or not a deliberate ending of life. For some time now I've engaged occasionally in this debate, and have always come away fairly shocked by the more extreme liberal stance on abortion, as if aborting the "protoplasm" is akin to stepping on a bug in your house, when in fact this is a moral choice and decision with great depth and need for liberal lending of compassion and restraint in allowing each individual woman to make the choice. Indeed, I honor and respect the viewpoint of the young mom with her whole life in front of her, but do not honor and respect adults basing their own attitudes and opinions on this viewpoint, rather than just honoring and respecting it, since this truly is not their standpoint, are not teenagers with a very self-limited focus on the world and what works for them in it, and should understand the basic notion that a fetus is a cherished life to a vast majority of the population, especially when it's in the family and actually wanted. As for health-related abortions, there is really no resistance in the larger population, only amongst a relative who aren't politically important.

oops

As for health-related abortions, there is really no resistance in the larger population, only amongst a relative who aren't politically important. Of course, I mean "relatively few".

JAVA

Good site.

pro-lifers

Until I see/hear that "pro-lifers" extend as much energy trying to save all the children suffering in the world and quickly heading for an early death, I'll continue to question their stance that all 'potential' lives should be spared. Their narrow focus seems a bit lazy and self-serving. How much easier it is for them to scream and rant against "pro-choice" advocates and clinics than it is to confront the seemingly endless supply of suffering afflicting children in the world (see Darfur). One way involves the easy to access anger and outrage (reactive), while the other requires a long term commitment to compassion and fortitude required to combat global child suffering(proactive). As long as I hear about children in the US (deemed wealthiest nation in the world) afflicted by all the conditions of poverty & homlessness, their outraged cries against abortion will seem thin and hollow.

I like to put it this way

It's easy for people that have never experienced an unwanted pregnancy to be anti-abortion. I wish these people would subject themselves to the same level of privacy invasion they espouse. I happen to think that spiders are the most precious little things and should never be killed. Would the anti-abortion crowd please refrain from killing the spider crawling on them because I think it's precious and I do not wish it to be "terminated".

what we talk about about when we talk about abortion

the discussion after the before and after Obama's speech has included claims that he is the "most pro-abortion president ever" and that he believes in the death of children born alive.... then on the other side, there's an attempt to move the discussion into being all about poor women with no access to birth control, as if this is the only source of abortion in the US. But failures of birth control occur no matter what method (short of abstinence) is used, and unplanned, unwanted pregnancies occur no matter what one's economic or social/class position. Obama's desire for true dialogue, where each side is willing to listen to the other, runs up against a problem. Those who are pro-choice are often williing to listen and hear that others have a different view. I would want a woman to be forced to have an abortion, even if her life was at stake. I think that is a position respectful of those who believe abortion is never a rational/acceptable choice. But, very few "pro life" proponents seem willing to hear those who would preserve a woman's right to control her own body. So how can dialogue occur?? elisabeth

Elisabeth, I think anyone

Elisabeth, I think anyone who is genuine about wanted to discuss abortion knows that birth control is more than just more of it to poor women. Sure, methods fail, but MOST of the time, there was no attempt in the first place -- and this is true across all economic situations. The dialog we really need is why are people failing to use contraception? It's out there, it is mostly easy to obtain. Yet men fail to use condoms because birth control is still the responsibility of the woman. The methods for women involve messing with hormones. The place to attack the problem is getting people to USE contraception. Every. Single. Time. You won't prevent every unwanted pregnancy, but you'll prevent a whole lot more of them.

women who have abortions are morally superior

moral choice Bringing an unwanted child into this world is immoral. Women who have abortions are morally superior to woman who bear children they do not want.

You know, it really is quite

You know, it really is quite foolish that both flounder2 and the anonymous "criminologist" can't seem to tell Indian Subcontinenters who are conservatives apart (they all look alike with that dark tan skin, eh? Bobby Jindal, Reihan Salam, Ramesh Ponnuru, Dinesh D'Souza...I mean, what do those names have, like five o's and six u's? weirdo Hindu-vegetable eaters!). Let's at least get some basic facts straight: Ponnuru did not write "The Enemy at Home", there is no evidence at all that he has any sympathy for the positions D'Souza advanced in that book, in general, people at NRO did not like D'Souza's book (or at least more disliked it than liked it, with many not registering an opinion): http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVjYjQzY2FkOWQyZDhkZTJjZWQyMzkzYWU... The reason advanced by many for their anti-D'Souza-ism there was that he was being shockingly unfair to people in the West who support abortion and things like that; that they should not be compared to the Taliban, et al. So, basically, there is evidence that most conservatives would pick their poison, if they had to, between OBL and NARAL, that they would certainly choose NARAL (this is what I would chose in an instant). That is precisely the opposite of what D'Souza wanted us all to conclude. As usual, no acknowledgement at all is given for this fact. 2nd, Ponnuru opposes not only the death penalty, but I am almost certain he publicly congratulated the New Jersey Legislature for banning it by statute. So, Mr. Criminologist, did they teach you to *read* where you got your master's degree?

I like that last part...

about letting the states try different approaches if they wish. Crucibles of democracy and that, y'know.

Pro choice defensiveness.

I heartily agree. Fetus sentimentalization is undermining the left and women's rights groups. Recently I diaried on Kos, noting how little pro choice people challenge the tropes like 'unborn child' 'fetal human rights' etc. So far as I am concerned these are all nothing but rhetorical trickery, without ethical or logical or historic foundation. I got about 150 responses. The overwhelming majority challenged me or even attacked me This from the Kos readership? what's going on?

"Fetus sentimentalization is

"Fetus sentimentalization is undermining the left and women's rights groups." Statements like that are a great clue as to why opposition to abortion rights will remain strong long after opposition to gay marriage has faded into obscurity. Mike

should be cut out That is a

should be cut out That is a bit too strong of language, implying another authority should impose its will and force abortion upon a pregnant woman, which would be the same as making a woman have a child she did not want with punitive laws. Luckily in America, all women are protected by Roe v Wade, unlike in China where women do not have a right to privacy and are forced by the state to eliminate pregnancies after having one child.

Abortion should be stopped

Abortion should be stopped immediately to avoid international disaster of the whole nation.

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.

Photo Essays

The chaos and humanity of war.
A selection of '70s ads depicting African-Americans.
As climate change melts the permafrost, native villages slip into the sea, taking a way of life with them.
Colombia's first environmental film fest.