Despite the claims of supporters and critics alike, Obama’s declarations on abortion have been inconsistent. It is not clear whether or not he is playing a political game, trying to find a way to get people from all sides on the abortion debate to support him. He is certainly not a pro-life candidate.[1] But he is also not a pro-abortion candidate, either.[2]He is pro-choice, which, as a moral position, makes little sense. When we see inconsistencies in Obama’s message on abortion, it is quite possible, indeed likely, that we are being shown something more than Obama’s position – we are also seeing what is going on in his mind, and the minds of the American populace at large, on abortion. America is divided over abortion; it is clear that our society is not pro-life, and yet America is not pro-abortion either. America is quite queasy over abortion, but America also dislikes what it sees as legalistic moralism overriding individual liberty. The individual is supreme in America, and as long as that is the case, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to promote a culture of life – because a culture requires more than a collection of individuals, but a community of people in solidarity with one another. As long as we do not think of ourselves as “our brother’s keeper,” we will find excuses for those social sins our society allows to exist.[3]This is the only way we can understand Obama’s position on abortion after looking at what he said in his third debate with John McCain.
Initially, Obama provides a rather straightforward pro-choice position. “But what ultimately I believe is that women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision. And I think that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn’t be subject to state referendum, any more than our First Amendment rights are subject to state referendum, any more than many of the other rights that we have should be subject to popular vote.” There are two interconnected issues going on with this argument, and we need to examine them separately. First is the position of individual liberty. Obama is clear, the decision for abortion should be in the hands of pregnant women, and no one else. They can and should consult people on the matter to help make up their minds, but ultimately, the decision should be theirs – and theirs alone. No one should force them to have an abortion, nor should anyone force them to keep the baby. Abortion in such a situation is seen neither as good nor bad, but morally neutral. The individual circumstances that a pregnant woman finds themselves in should be the means by which the woman decides to keep the baby or not. Only one who does not find value in the baby itself, value in life itself, can hold even a neutral position such as this; no one who views life as a good can ever suggest that it should be left to the individuals involved as to whether or not to kill it. The logic of this position is clear, and it is clearly wrong, but it does flow from the logic of liberty and individual freedom trumpeted by the American system, and it is understandable how it is being used, why it is being used, and why it is seen as legitimate to many. The second issue in this statement is a matter of Obama’s interpretation of the American legal system.[4]He believes the American legal system ultimately ends up being pro-choice, and he does not think he is in a position to argue against the system as a whole. Like the way people argue for the death penalty, for deporting illegal immigrants, or for free-market capitalism, Obama thinks the best way to keep society going is to work within the system we have: a change in positive law could have dangerous unforeseen consequences, so we are better with the devil we know than what might happen with a radical change in the system. American positive law sponsors the ideology of individualistic liberty, thus the first aspect of his argument is actually being backed by the second, and what is said here for Obama is true for most of America. As long as Americans think positive law should be left unchanged, and individual liberty in all aspects of choice is the highest good a society can offer, there will be no cultural change in regards to abortion; those concerned with abortion should find ways to counteract such positions, while finding a way to keep the positive good behind them as well.[5]
If this were all Obama said on abortion, one could say he held a consistent, although morally unacceptable, position on it. But this is not all he said. When challenged further on the issue, he had this to say: “With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life, and this did not contain that exception,” and, “But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, ‘We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.’ Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that’s where we can find some common ground, because nobody’s pro-abortion. I think it’s always a tragic situation.” Here the position initially proclaimed on abortion is completely over-turned. No longer is it merely an issue of individual liberty which must be given the final word – here, we find Obama saying that restrictions on that liberty are possible, and he would be willing to support some of them, if his concerns about them are met. Where is the argument from positive law saying abortion is a right in America? Where is the argument that an individual alone is free to make the decisions for themselves? It is not here. And he points out something more; abortion is not morally neutral; rather, it is “always a tragic situation.” It is for this reason Obama wants to work for its reduction; however, he differs with many as to the method for said reduction – he does not appear to think there is a strong legal case which can be made for it, but he does think a case can be made for promoting social programs which undermine the causes for abortion. Why would anyone be concerned with reducing abortions unless they see there is some moral issue involved, and abortion is not a morally neutral activity? Again, Obama made it clear, abortion is tragic, and so he cannot support it, though he seems to think he can support the individuals who make those decisions.[6]
Thus, in one debate, we find Obama holding to two different positions on abortion: that it is a morally neutral activity which should not be legislated, and that it is a tragic action which can be legislated. Like many Americans, it does not appear he sees the contradiction in the positions. And like many Americans, one could suggest that the problem ultimately comes from a false conception of society itself. He, like most Americans, thinks as long as he has not done a positive evil, such as perform an abortion himself, or such as to cause a poor man to be thrown out on the streets, he holds no personal guilt in the matter. As long as we do not see how society as a whole, and those involved in that society, share in the guilt of actions done in the name of that society, grave intrinsic evils will be promoted by such societies. People will feel themselves separated from such evils. Catholics, who are to work for the common good through solidarity in subsidiarity, should see through such a smokescreen, and work to engage society so that it can at last realize the errors of individualism. But to do so is going to take work, because nothing will distance someone more than screaming at them at how evil they are for actions they do not think they have done: calling Obama a baby killer, for example, will turn him off from what you might otherwise have to say to him, because he will think “I didn’t personally kill any babies.”
So what are we to do? Are we to entirely ignore the guilt that a politician has for keeping to the status quo? Obviously not. One must point out the issue of society guilt and take the blame upon oneself, not point out the blame on others. That will attract the attention of others – when we are willing to confess our own sins, we get the plank out of our own eye, showing it can be done. Then, like St Paul on Mars Hill, perhaps we should learn about the other, find out where they are at, and engage those areas which can fruitfully lead to a change in position. For example, Obama and America are, as has been said, queasy about abortion. Start with that. Start with their own assumptions. Lead the discussion using their own ideologies, and show how it connects to something greater, truer; bring the limited truth they have into the context of the greater Truth. That is the way one engages society, that is the way one transforms a collection of individuals looking after themselves into a culture of life. Take their interests and concerns and show how they relate to a greater whole which, if followed, best realizes those interests. And for many, it is Obama’s recognition that there needs to be a way beyond the impasse, that there needs to be dialogue between those who are pro-life and pro-choice, which leads them to the hope that if he were president, Catholics might actually be able to engage him on issues of life. He already has shown he understands the tragedy of abortion; that would be a good place to begin our dialogue.
Footnotes
[1] Neither is John McCain. But those who are pro-life can argue for which of the two they think will best suit pro-life interests, and there can be differences of opinion here.
[2] This is not to say no one is pro-abortion. For example, those who demand population control like China are pro-abortion. One could also suggest that those who make a living on abortion tend to be pro-abortion, although someone like P.K. Dick in The Crack in Space could imagine an abortionist who is concerned about the ethics of abortion and would like to give up the practice but feel trapped into its practice because of the demands placed upon them by society (which I expect is the case with many abortionists in China).
[3]These sins do not end with abortion. People treat abortion as “someone else’s problem” because they are not doing it themselves and it does not affect themselves directly. The same is true with other grave problems such as worker’s rights or extreme, humiliating poverty. Is not a common reaction to the homeless man or woman on the street is to walk by them thinking, “I didn’t cause the beggar to be like that, so it is not my problem”?
[4] I believe he is fundamentally correct; those who are against abortion often ignore the legal setting and context, and so try to find ways to read it out of American positive law. But that is a flawed approach at best. The same error is to be found in those who try to use American positive law to stop the death penalty. It cannot be found in American positive law. To stop abortion or the death penalty, we are going to need to radically change American positive law. Until then, judges and politicians should be expected to follow what is within the system itself, though politicians could be judged more harshly because they should also be working to find ways to change the structure of society itself.
[5] We do not need a totalitarian system to overcome abortion. But we do need to change society so that it once again works for the common good without losing personal (not individual) liberty in the process.
[6] Is this a political way of saying, “Hate the sin, love the sinner?”
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In