Civic dissension and argument is a vital part of life in America, and, when the terms of engagement are reasonably equitable and people act in good faith, regardless of the outcome, both sides can take solace in the fact that it's only in totalitarian states where debates are summarily settled.
However, if we didn't have enough supporting evidence before President Obama's speech at Notre Dame, his remarks there made it unambiguously clear that the debate over abortion not being waged on a level playing field. To listen to his speech, its lofty rhetoric about finding common ground notwithstanding, one might be inclined to conclude that a fetus isn't, in fact, a separate human being. Indeed, it's the casual manner in which liberals such as Obama characterize the abortion decision, as though it's merely one of many on a narrow moral continuum, ranging from the annoying to the disconcerting, but never reaching the threshold of the morally noxious.
With the liberals' habitual defense of every creature in the animal kingdom, from the dolphin to the snail darter, not to mention their defense death row inmates, one might think their apparently limitless ethical reservoir would extend to an innocent unborn human--think again. The reason the abortion debate is so contentious, Obama said, is that Americans hold no values more dear than "life" and "choice."
We could proffer the argument about school choice as our first exhibit, but that would only further muddy the already murky liberal waters. Rather, let's examine how we got to the point where 1.2 million innocent lives are snuffed each year. Recall that back in the 1950s the incidence of pre-marital sex, abortion, and single parenthood was profoundly lower. Enter the 60s with its myopic iconoclasm and insistence that God, love, and matrimony were quaint--read expendable--virtues that oppressed free expression and women's rights.
The marriage contract was annulled and sexuality was severed from procreation within relationships blessed by God, and the result was the incidence of single parenthood and abortion skyrocketed. At that point a Supreme Court antagonistic to any semblance of Constitutional literacy crafted a right of privacy out of thin air, which provided a legal, if not moral license to slaughter the unborn.
The cruel and wholly disingenuous way in which liberals characterize this debate reflects an astonishing level of dishonesty and self-delusion: They originally argued that a fetus wasn't a separate human being; then, with the advent of ultrasound, they conceded--duh!--it was, but that it was still the mother's "right" to murder it. Obama has taken the argument to unprecedented amoral heights with his votes in the Illinois senate against legislation that would have proscribed "live birth abortion."
Only those immune to the darker side of human nature should read about that savage proceduree, those who don't wince when viewing those gray photographs of emaciated bodies in Auschwitz piled high like cord wood. But for most of us who are moved to visceral revulsion, suffice it to say it's a practice we would never, ever perform on a dog.
So, as Obama calls for a calm ecumenicalism in search of common ground, let's not forget that with the passing of every hour, another 137 innocent unborn humans are killed--all for the sake of "choice."