Obama: Roe v Wade Gives Daughters the Same Chance as Sons to 'Fulfill Their Dreams

“As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters,” the president said as he commemorated the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court nationalized abortion law.

“I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right,” the president continued, according to barackobama.com. “While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue—no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.”

Although most of the presidents’ remarks were unsurprising (his record shows that he has long favored pro-abortion legislation), the way he chose to end his commemoration has drawn criticism.

“And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams [emphasis added],” the president said.

It's because of this type of rhetoric that many anti-abortion critics have accused strong "pro-choice" advocates of being intellectually dishonest in regards to the discussion of abortion.

Even though the president made sure to include all the politically safe buzzwords (i.e. “rights,” “opportunities,” etc.), his message failed to mention what many consider the fundamental issue at stake: is it a human life?

One would expect that an intellectually honest discussion -- either for or against abortion -- would at least include a reference to this question. However, the president avoids this, claims that it’s “a sensitive and often divisive issue" and then throws his support behind the side of "choice."

Why?

If it's such a "divisive" issue, then surely the leader of the free world has a good reason for falling so hard on one side of the debate. Perhaps he knows something that opponents of abortion don't. Maybe it's not a life.

Why ignore this critical question, admit that abortion is a "divisive" issue, choose one side, and then simply move on?

Perhaps President Obama, like many proponents of a “woman’s right to choose” (or as the columnist Ann Coulter likes to say, a woman’s “right to have sex with men they don't want to have children with”), has opted to avoid the "life issue" because the possible answer to that question -- that it is indeed a human life -- would render his position on "choice" indefensible. That is to say, should the debate over life ever conclude that the unborn child is a human being, but advocates of "choice" still want legalized abortion, they may find it awfully difficult to defend the Orwellian idea that all humans have a "right to choose," but some have more "choice" than others.

"Those who are helpless are, it is all but universally held in America, to be protected,” the conservative author William F. Buckley Jr. once wrote. “The one-day-old child is protected with the full force of the law. The proposition that he is without rights when he is minus one day old is nothing more than a social convention conflating various concerns."

Maybe it's because abortion advocates realize the apparent absurdity of the "minus one day" argument that they have chosen to avoid the "life issue" altogether and focus entirely on "women's rights." So when Buckley asks if an abortion involves the termination of a human life, his question is ultimately ignored and the response is something along the lines of "one can't infringe on a woman's 'constitutionally protected reproductive rights.'"

But is it a human life?

Critics believe that this refusal by abortion advocates to engage in the debate over whether an unborn child is a human being, and instead couch the issue in terms of "choice" and "rights," has led to an increasing amount of frustration among opponents of abortion.

And why shouldn't it? If one truly believes that a human life is at stake, as "pro-lifers" surely do, then the idea of "disposing" of it -- even if it's “safe,” “legal,” and “rare” -- is wholly unacceptable and no amount of repeating the "safe and rare" mantra will change that. Furthermore, as far as "pro-lifers" are concerned, wrapping the abortion debate in politically correct terms and then trying to market it as a means to help women "fulfill their dreams" is more than disingenuous -- it's insulting.

Joseph Scheidler, who Pat Buchanan once referred to as “the godfather of the pro-life moment,” says that the “safe, legal, and rare” argument (first employed by the Clinton administration and now used by the Obama administration) is "illogical."

"They've been saying that since the beginning. That's still something we must fight," Scheidler told this author last year. "The bottom line is still the same: You cannot destroy an innocent human life. You don't target children. What kind of a society does that? We cannot and will not buy any of that illogical 'safe and rare' argument."

"When you say 'legal but rare,' that's like saying, 'We'll still kill children and old people but only rarely.' The fact is that you are still killing a person. It shouldn't be legal. Those are just words," he continued. "It's got to be illegal because it's wrong to kill people. If you don't stop it there, then it only makes sense to continue down the road we have been on."

Of course, Scheidler's line of reasoning only works if the unborn child is indeed a human being -- which is precisely the discussion being avoided.

Rather than address these arguments and come to an agreement over whether or not the unborn child is a human being, staunch "choice" advocates prefer to defend their position with arguments about “personal health choices” and “keeping the government out of the bedroom” (ironically, these "bedroom rights" and "health choices" are all but forgotten the moment advocates of "choice" get involved in regulating light bulbs, gallons-per-flush, the amount of salt in food, trans fats, school lunches, and cigarettes).

Considering that the president is a strong supporter of a "woman's right to choose," and that "pro-choice" rhetoric often invokes "rights" and "choice" but ignores the "life issue," should his Roe v Wade speech come as a surprise?

Recall that as a senator, the president voted four times against legislation to protect the life of a baby that survived a botched abortion, according to CNS News. He voted against such legislation at the state level in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

“The 2003 bill was assigned to the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired at the time,” writes Fred Lucas of CNS News. “It mirrored a law passed by Congress, which said nothing in federal law should be construed to undermine the Roe v. Wade ruling.”

As president, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, (i.e. “Obamacare”), which would “appropriate federal money toward insurance plans that pay for abortions.”

Therefore, after taking into consideration his continued support for pro-abortion legislation and even the fact that he believes pregnancy can be a “punishment," the presidents' comments regarding the 39^th anniversary of Roe v Wade aren't terribly surprising.

In fact, as far as an open and intellectually honest discussion from a strong supporter of "reproductive rights" is concerned, his remarks are about par for the course.

(H/T: Weasel Zippers)