All posts in Ethics

Obama 2012: “Pro-Child Pro-Family Pro-Choice”

I ran into a nice old guy with hearing aids and a beard in the parking lot of the church where my son goes to his Mother’s Day Out program.  His Prius had broken down and he was waiting on a ride.  I noticed a bumper sticker on the back of his car and I couldn’t resist taking a picture.

I introduced myself to him and we shook hands and smiled.  I told him I hadn’t seen that bumper sticker and I hoped he didn’t mind if I took a picture of it.  He replied, “Oh, not at all.  It’s my favorite.”  I smiled and said, “Well I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.”  He smiled back and that was that.  The entire exchange was completely cordial.  I don’t know if he gave it a second thought but I’ve been thinking about it all day.

Now I live in a very blue city that will probably go 90% for Obama in November.  In fact he’s probably not left enough for the majority of voters in my town.  But the good thing from my vantage point is that my city is not representative of the country as a whole.  Still I found the bumper sticker interesting, especially in light of some of the recent information out there that shows that pro-choice Americans are at a record low.  Clearly this old man was in the 41% that are still pro-choice.

I also should note that the bumper sticker was in fact two bumper stickers and that the top one did not originate, at least not directly, from the Obama campaign.  But were it not for the 41% issue, it probably would have.  After all, the pro-choice position, despite its declining popularity, is central to the Obama social platform.

I have always taken issue with the term “pro-choice,” so I find it especially ridiculous when it’s married to “pro-family” and “pro-child.”  I understand that “pro-abortion,” or even “pro-abortion rights,” doesn’t have quite the beneficent glow of the other terms.  Certainly, “pro-right to destroy my living fetus” or “I’m for de-limbing the fetus,” while perhaps technically accurate, is completely impolite, way over the line, and frankly, gross.

By the way, I understand that the “pro-choice” folks disdain those who are opposed to inalienable abortion rights for calling their position “pro-life,” as if pro-choicers aren’t very fond of life themselves.  However, I do find it less Orwellian, especially in light of all the advances in medicine and our understanding of the early stages of human life that have occurred since 1973.

This issue of abortion rights is an emotional one.  It’s emotional for me as well.  Rationally speaking, I was converted once and for all on the issue after speaking with a woman in college who had run a bunch of abortion clinics in a major metropolitan area in the 1980s.  Her experience was horrifying and she struggled with massive guilt at what she saw, what she allowed to go on, and what she even encouraged young women to do.

My rational view on the matter was solidified emotionally after having spent more time in the NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) than anyone should have to with two of my kids.  I witnessed children being brought into this world at around 20 weeks–and surviving to live young healthy lives–something that was unthinkable in 1973.  It became so clear to me personally that trying to identify a point in time when life became a life worth protecting was absolutely arbitrary.  How can one say that a 20-week-old fetus was not a life in 1973 but is a life now in 2012?  Because medicine says so?

How can a mother have the right to abort her fetus, while at the same point in that fetus’ life, a person can be charged with manslaughter if the fetus dies in the course of an accident for which that person is responsible?  The fetus dying is a crime or not based solely on whether the mother wants the fetus to live?

The issue of abortion is probably the pre-eminent moral issue of our day and I do not presume to have answers to the myriad questions that arise from a federal directive that would undo Roe v Wade.  Living in a time where Roe v Wade isn’t law is almost unfathomable it’s been with us for so long.

But what I do know is that a facile “I’m pro-choice” doesn’t cut it anymore.  It might have in 1973.  It might have in 1993.  But in 2012 any thinking American knows that the knowledge we’ve picked up over the last 40 some odd years is a weight as well.  There is no room for knee jerk slogans on this issue anymore.

President Obama is still making his list

Kimberley Strassel has another piece on our president’s use of an enemies list.  Under the banner “Keeping GOP Honest” the Obama campaign has singled out individuals who have committed the crime of supporting Mitt Romney.

Going further, under the guise of doing “opposition research,” Obama political operatives have searched out the private lives of Romney supporters, digging up divorce records, children’s social media accounts and any gossip or rumor that may have been floated.

What happens next?  Labels are assigned, family members are harassed, highly personal attacks on private citizens are sensationalized and spread across media outlets.  Remember, this is all being orchestrated by the organization run by the sitting President of the United States.

Strassel writes:

Political donations don’t come with a right to privacy, and Mr. VanderSloot might have expected a spotlight. Then again, President Obama, in the wake of the Gabby Giffords shooting, gave a national address calling for “civility” in politics. Yet rather than condemn those demeaning his opponent’s donors, Mr. Obama—the nation’s most powerful man—instead publicly named individuals, egging on the attacks. What has followed is the slimy trolling into a citizen’s private life.

Mr. VanderSloot acknowledges that “when I first learned that President Obama’s campaign had singled me out on his ‘enemies list,’ I knew it was like taping a target on my back.” But the more he’s thought it through, “the public beatings and false accusations that followed are no deterrent. These tactics will not work in America.” He’s even “contemplating a second donation.”

Still. If details about Mr. VanderSloot’s life become public, and if this hurts his business or those who work for him, Mr. Obama will bear responsibility. This is what happens when the president makes a list.

The foul stench of “social justice” and Elizabeth Warren

More thoughts on why it matters.

Did Obama steal $10?

Power Line has a very interesting article in what is now a series of articles called Dubious Donations.

Now I’m sure there is a very simple straightforward explanation why a man who claims that he has never voted for or donated to a Democrat in his lifetime was charged $10 by “Obama for America” on his HSBC card (which account had also been hacked), I’m just saying maybe it’s worth a look see.

While I’m sure if a crime was committed in the name of Obama he will be able to distance himself enough that he can insist his hands are clean–try this one out: “while I had no knowledge of these actions and certainly do not condone crime of any kind, those are the works of spirited men and women who have been subjugated under the boot of the 1% and are simply acting out…”–there is no precedent in the modern era for the constant flow of thieves and thugs and scoundrels that swirl around this presidency.

No matter the protestations, we know that the governing ethos of the Obama machine is that all means are justified to advance the cause of its messiah.

Warren controversy worsens: Shocking video surfaces on YouTube

Thanks to Instapundit for breaking this story.

She was really just a composite?! Who is this guy?

People can continue to dismiss this stuff as not relevant but there is more here than meets the eye.  Now we learn that the  girl Obama took to the show by the black playwright was just a “composite” (his words) and not a girl at all.

In other words, he made it up.  It was a lie.

Why?  To fit his narrative?  To promote a certain agenda?  It’s bizarre.

I read something a while back about the really odd lack of information about Barack Obama’s past.  His girlfriends, his teachers, his friends.  Where are they?  He really does almost appear out of nowhere.  He’s at Harvard.  He meets Michelle.  He begins to save the world.  Then the legislature, then the Senate, then voila!  The Oval Office.

How is this even possible and why–seriously, why?–is the conventional media so completely not curious about it?

I’ve been guilty of a lack of curiosity about his past myself.  Like everyone else I couldn’t be bothered.

I’m not saying there’s a conspiracy or that he’s some Manchurian candidate.  But I would like to see some of that hard hitting investigative journalism that the Comedy News Network and others are always talking about instead of the continued puff pieces that refuse to ask a tough question.


And let’s not forget John Edwards’ key support for our President

John Edwards and I believe in a different America,” Obama said, borrowing an Edwards campaign theme.

Yes they do.  Edwards’ trial begins today.

Anyone but Obama 2012.


The President’s $8 billion Medicare slush fund

Why would the President borrow from taxpayers to postpone the crushing effect of Obamacare on seniors (til after November)?


Steyn on hookers and the secret service

I’m not sure if I’ve ever read anything by Mark Steyn that I hadn’t wished I could write myself. Make sense?

He is as clear thinking (at least with his prose) and funny as they come.