On Life Day, Obama Defies Reality...Again
It should come as no surprise that President Obama has once again used the day of the March for Life to signal his direct and strenuous opposition to the goals of the marchers. In a brief statement, the President recalled the importance of the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion and emphasized: “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.”
Technically the phrase “this fundamental constitutional right” refers, in the context of Obama’s remarks, to the “broader principle” that “government should not intrude on private family matters.” But this is a mere euphemism, and utterly laughable on the lips not only of a man who favors government regulation at nearly every turn but of a President who has advocated intrusions into private family matters more tenaciously than any other. His administration has been a leader in ensuring that children are not interfered with by their parents in anything involving sexual intercourse, contraception and abortion; in destroying the very foundation of marriage as a union between one man and one woman; in indoctrinating students on family structure and sexuality through the public schools; and in restricting the conscience rights of any person, family or organization which attempts to avoid participation in an abortiception-driven society.
In the same statement, Obama stressed that Americans must be united, regardless of divergent views, on the need to “support pregnant women and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, [and] encourage healthy relationships.” But by now surely everyone realizes that the emperor has no clothes. For the evidence is overwhelming that promoting contraception and making abortion more widely available has exactly the opposite effects: It almost infallibly encourages promiscuous relationships, it increases unwanted pregnancies, and it turns women into targets of abuse for the “fault” of becoming pregnant. It also dramatically fosters a culture of family irresponsibility, including escalating divorce rates, leading not only to physical and emotional trauma but the widespread impoverishment of women and children.
Granted, many do not care. Many refuse to acknowledge this reality because they lack the courage to fight their intellectual and/or physical addictions to sexual license. After two generations of untempered libido, even the thought of authentic sexual responsibility is frightening. Where, many wonder, will self-control end if once it gets its ugly nose under the tent? To those who are congenitally detached, commitment—and the restraints which go with it—can be terrifying.
But the President’s concluding sentence is terrifying too: “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.” What could this possibly mean?
For starters it means that we must acknowledge no fundamental differences between male and female, man and woman. If men are able to be reproductively irresponsible (as their biology in isolation obviously enables them to be), then women must be protected from reproductive responsibility as well. If men can evade the consequences of mocking reality, then we must enable women to do so as well. And if contraception and abortion are not sufficient to the purpose, then let us consider same-sex attraction. Why does it come as no surprise that the same Presidential administration that unceasingly advocates contraception and abortion also unceasingly advocates the gay lifestyle?
The truth, of course, is that nobody can really evade the consequences of mocking reality. “You can drive nature back with a pitchfork,” wrote that brilliant pagan Horace, “but she keeps coming back.” She is, after all, not only around us but within us, which is why her denial makes all of us so profoundly unhappy. Do we not see the evidence everywhere? As unnatural pleasures of every kind have increased, has not human joy declined? Yet our President continues to fiddle amid the flames, placing the violation of the natural law at the very core of his cherished political agenda. Thus he turns “yes we can” into the ultimate social cheat, his very rhetoric a harbinger of destruction.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Duns Scotus -
Jan. 25, 2012 2:15 PM ET USA
In addition to Horace's maxim, we may also recall one attributed to St. Augustine. (Whether he actually said it or not, I'm sure he would agree with it.) To wit: God always forgives, man sometimes forgives, nature NEVER forgives.
Posted by: John J Plick -
Jan. 24, 2012 8:40 PM ET USA
The power of Christianity overthrew the idolatrous tyranny of the Roman Empire, but we "see it coming" and will not gird up our loins to stop it? Many Catholics seem ready to vote for him again, and also feel that if homosexuals "are happy" their relationship should be given the same status as the marriage between a man and a woman. A "Nero" is not required to corrupt us, we are corrupting ourselves.
Posted by: koinonia -
Jan. 24, 2012 6:27 PM ET USA
Excellent conclusion to an excellent essay. And as the conclusion indicates, we are living in a profoundly- perhaps even uniquely- unhappy time. All things considered, it's only natural.
Posted by: AgnesDay -
Jan. 24, 2012 5:19 PM ET USA
Are we not being commanded to bow down before the Beast?
Posted by: sparch -
Jan. 24, 2012 10:14 AM ET USA
Your allusion to Obama as Nero is something I have pondered for a long time. He has no concept of the damage he is doing to our culture and, in the end, will blame the Christians for destorying what he himself has put his hand to. His assault against the church in the last three years has been relentless.
Posted by: Cornelius -
Jan. 24, 2012 7:37 AM ET USA
The failure to replace this man in 2012 would be a disaster for the country: for families, for children, for marriages, for the unborn. Unencumbered by any need to appease the electorate at all, he would act without restraint to advance his anti-family agenda.
Posted by: wolfdavef3415 -
Jan. 23, 2012 9:01 PM ET USA
“I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.” The word fundamental is misused. The 'right' to abort is derivative. The right to adhere to one's religious beliefs is 'fundamental' to the Constitution. And we all know what happened there. It's overused, but the rhetoric is Orwellian. Fundamental = derivative. Women's health = abortion. Language. They don't make it like they used to.