Obamateurism of the Day

posted at 8:05 am on January 24, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

We get that Barack Obama thinks that Roe v Wade was the greatest Supreme Court decision since Wickard v Filburn, and the fact that he felt compelled to issue a statement hailing its 39th anniversary probably shouldn’t come as a great shock.  But the way Obama chose to stress his support was certainly strange, to say the least:

“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,” Obama said. “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.

“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,” Obama said.

“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.”

Because what young girl doesn’t dream one day of aborting her unborn child, right?  And how does abortion on demand equate to a right and opportunity open to sons and not daughters?  Finally, speaking as a grandfather of two myself, I find it more than just a little strange to hear a man who authored Dreams of My Father talk about his daughters’ dreams as depending on disposing of what would be his own grandchildren.

The Anchoress gives vent to her disgust:

Let’s spell this out; let’s clarify this vague, euphemistic line, for the sake of transparency, shall we? Because this dual-mouthed president is all about transparency — he even won an award for it, which hereceived without press — the fulfillment of our daughter’s dreams lie in the freedom and ease with which asucking hose or a scraping curette may introduce violence and slaughter within their wombs, at the very core of their beings, in order to shred their children to pieces. For this 100% NARAL-approved president who passed up every opportunity to show even a scintilla of mercy for a baby born alive during an attempted abortion, our daughter’s dreams depend on their being able to find someone who will burn their baby in utero, or shove a pair of scissors into the partially-delivered child’s skull, or to close the lid on the garbage pail until the bothersome crying ends.

In Obama’s world, our daughter’s happiness depends upon having these options at their disposal, literally and figuratively. Because love, and the sneaky way it has of showing up whenever a baby is born and then complicating everything, (because it is meaningful and real) is an insufficient vehicle for the fulfillment of women, and their self-actualization.

Arise, daughters of America, and build your dreams upon the slaughter of your progeny; some say the fullness of our humanity was built upon the flesh and blood of one woman who said “yes” to a daunting and difficult proposal, but I say your fulfillment, your dreams and your future are better built upon the garbage heaps of “no” we’ve encouraged you to form out of your own flesh-and-blood in the empty landfills of government compassion, hope and change.

Because “yes we can,” is all about the hope and change that’s built on our emphatic “noes”. No, to life. No,to conscience. No, to compassion that is not mandated. No, to assistance given by any but government. No, to any power greater than ourselves and our glorious government.

And a big “No, we can’t” to one’s unborn grandchildren.

Got an Obamateurism of the Day? If you see a foul-up by Barack Obama, e-mail it to me at obamaisms@edmorrissey.com with the quote and the link to the Obamateurism. I’ll post the best Obamateurisms on a daily basis, depending on how many I receive. Include a link to your blog, and I’ll give some link love as well. And unlike Slate, I promise to end the feature when Barack Obama leaves office.

Illustrations by Chris Muir of Day by Day. Be sure to read the adventures of Sam, Zed, Damon, and Jan every day!

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I never understood this logic:

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

Why? Why would any of these things matter if there’s nothing wrong with the practice?

This smacks of Clinton’s old line about the need for abortions to be “safe, legal and rare”. Well, if they’re both safe and legal, why does it matter if they’re rare? If it’s not a biological human being, why should the need be reduced? Why should adoption of a supposed lump of amorphous tissue be promoted?

This attempt at placation almost upsets me more than the issue itself.

The Schaef on January 24, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Schaef, it’s not placation. It’s merely the verbalization of a contradictory, bankrupt way of thinking. It’s relativism and the individual espousing it or using it as a foundation of thinking often either doesn’t realize it or rationalizes it as reasonable. They find it perfectly reasonable to stand on the north and south pole at the same time. I guess they think we exist in a fifth dimension. They live in a world of their own construct.

Logus on January 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Logus on January 24, 2012 at 11:07 AM

… and, actually, just to note this, Jesus didn’t say he wished Judas had never been, either. He said, objectively, it would have been better if …

Axe on January 24, 2012 at 11:15 AM

canditaylor68- How heartbreaking! My prayers are with your family today!

lisa fox on January 24, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Axe – True dat.

Logus on January 24, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Let’s see if my little brain of the masses can understand this.

1. Government should allow women to kill their babies because the government shouldn’t interfere in private matters.

2. Government should mandate purchase of health insurance because in private matters, government knows better what the masses need.

Did I get it right?

katablog.com on January 24, 2012 at 9:02 AM

3. Government will mandate that religious organizations provide abortificants via their health insurance, aginst both their religious convictions and their right of conscience, or go out of business. (It is the same ‘deal’ on tolerant homosexuality that religious adoption agencies get. Violate your principles because the state’s principles are better, or quit. In both cases, the state puts someone elses sex choices higher than your first ammendment rights, or even the right to life.)

AnotherOpinion on January 24, 2012 at 11:29 AM

It should always sicken any person with a single iota of decency to hear the anti-life crowd use the phrase “pro-choice”. For this, the ability to murder pre-born life, is the ONLY subject in which they believe that a person should not be told how to choose by the government.

This shame of a President, and those of his ideology, speak of boldly enforcing choice while demanding that you and I (but not his pals who get waivers) take the medical system he has chosen for you.

They demand that you and I are not allowed to express our religion anywhere that can be called “public”, because that automatically means it is a government-controlled place, and must therefore be separated from the Divine.

They demand that you and I have our children educated at government-run centers of indoctrination, at which they teach things that you and I would reject.

They demand that you and I who work hard, and earn a decent living by our work pay taxes of which, an ever growing portion is given to those who do not or will not work, so that they can have as good a living, because it is only “fair”.

The nanny State knows one thing for sure; that it knows better than you or I how our lives should be lived, and attempts every day to add regulations and legislation to make sure of it, regardless of our own choices. Unless a man and a woman do something which results in an unwanted pregnancy, the one circumstance in which the government pretends to go hands-off and let the woman “choose”.

And this shame of a President states very clearly in the above-referenced comments that, since a baby is a barrier to a fulfilled life, the “choice” is obvious.

Pro-choice my white Irish backside.

Freelancer on January 24, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Finally, speaking as a grandfather of two myself, I find it more than just a little strange to hear a man who allegedly authored Dreams of My Father talk about his daughters’ dreams as depending on disposing of what would be his own grandchildren.

The man can not complete a sentence without a teleprompter. Could he have written a book?

Slowburn on January 24, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Soooooo…Is The One saying that sons NEVER lose their opportunities? Even if they father a child. Sounds to me like he is excepting the fact that a son can father a child and never take responsibility.

Yes, that was my first thought as well. If you’re male you can walk away and the girl is left with “her mistake”. What an incredibly stupid and thoughtless thing to say in general. But the fact that our POSPOTUS said it makes it a thousand times worse.

Xyz22 on January 24, 2012 at 2:34 PM

At this point in time I object to making social issues (even infanticide) a campaign focus. We have other problems to deal with that require a strong conservative hand to fix. That will not happen if social issues are made the focus of this election.

I’ll include my own opinion on abortion though, which is one reason I don’t want to see this talked about extensively in this run up to the election; as much as I despise abortion in any term, I despise removing the right of a woman to determine what happens to her sovereign body even more.

It gets cloudier than that even, which is why I stress the point that this subject should be left out of the debates and campaigns in general. Let the left scream for more dead babies and let the conservatives remain silent until their second term when other problems have been sufficiently addressed. Then we can have the blood bath battle over who’s rights should come first.

Wolfmoon on January 24, 2012 at 3:30 PM

, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters,

Unless, of course, the father wants the child but the mother doesn’t. Or if, during a separation, the father discovers the child isn’t his, but has to keep paying alimony and a lifetstyle to which (no I am not divorced). OR if a school teacher wants to drive your 15 year old to an abortion clinic.

Hey Libs. Shove it. There was NOTHING wrong with Kansas.

WryTrvllr on January 24, 2012 at 3:31 PM

At this point in time I object to making social issues (even infanticide) a campaign focus. We have other problems to deal with that require a strong conservative hand to fix. That will not happen if social issues are made the focus of this election.

I’ll include my own opinion on abortion though, which is one reason I don’t want to see this talked about extensively in this run up to the election; as much as I despise abortion in any term, I despise removing the right of a woman to determine what happens to her sovereign body even more.

It gets cloudier than that even, which is why I stress the point that this subject should be left out of the debates and campaigns in general. Let the left scream for more dead babies and let the conservatives remain silent until their second term when other problems have been sufficiently addressed. Then we can have the blood bath battle over who’s rights should come first.

Wolfmoon on January 24, 2012 at 3:30 PM

ABSOULTELY. Well said.

WryTrvllr on January 24, 2012 at 3:38 PM

I share the Anchoress’ outrage at the ongoing assault on religious institutions in the name of putative “social justice,” and I fail utterly to see how anyone can conceivably defend late term abortions. I do not, however, share the enthusiasm with which many pro-lifers embrace the heinous Dr. Gosnell’s of this world as proxies for virtually anyone who holds a pro-choice position.

Pro-lifers admit of no moral distinction between aborting an embryo and scissoring a new born infant, but we make all sorts of other distinctions in law between what constitutes murder and what does not. The vast majority of those who argue for choice do just that, however misguided you believe that moral judgment to be. Even Roe v Wade poses no constitutional bar to laws banning abortion in late pregnancy. Where certain state laws have been found deficient, the Court has pointed to the lack of legal language affording protections to the mother as well as her child.

The inconsistency of condemning government intrusions while applauding Obamacare is obvious enough, but one could say the same of the reverse. Indeed, when it comes to grisly descriptions of the men, women, and children who are so tidily dispatched as “collateral damage” in military operations, those who so loudly proclaim that every human life is sacred from the moment of conception suddenly seem less perturbed. The innocents left dead and maimed are loosely swept under the rug of self-defense as unfortunate, but “acceptable,” losses, and our ex post facto regrets are deemed morally sufficient. How fortunate that conscientious objections, and consistency, need no longer be tested by the draft.

JM Hanes on January 24, 2012 at 3:39 PM

but one could say the same of the reverse. Indeed, when it comes to grisly descriptions of the men, women, and children who are so tidily dispatched as “collateral damage” in military operations, those who so loudly proclaim that every human life is sacred from the moment of conception suddenly seem less perturbed. The innocents left dead and maimed are loosely swept under the rug of self-defense as unfortunate, but “acceptable,” losses, and our ex post facto regrets are deemed morally sufficient. How fortunate that conscientious objections, and consistency, need no longer be tested by the draft.

And thats where the tracks went awry. How can you compare a newborn, even remotely, to ANY non-combatant in say Nazi Germany or Afghanistan. Degrees of guilt, ABSOLUTELY. Wind driven snow?? Uh Uh. Nice try.

WryTrvllr on January 24, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Wolfmoon on January 24, 2012 at 3:30 PM

The issue of abortion is not about rights and values. The right to choose to kill “it” presupposes we understand what “it” is. This is where “choice,” comes off the rails. They argue choice is a right and a value, but increasing science, modern ultrasounds, and common sense tell us that “it” is a human being, and not some mass of cells.

At every stage of development, from inception to death, human beings go through the same development processes. After inception, there is never a point where the body decides whether to make a human being, or something else. The “it” in choice is whether to kill a human being. Trying to impose artificial distinctions such as viability, size, environment, or ability are useful in distinguishing stage of development, but do not change what “it” is.

Just as an acorn is just like all other acorns at that stage of development and only grows into an oak tree, a fetus, is a human being and only grows into a more fully developed human being with time. The holy grail of choice creates a false dichotomy between sovereignty of a woman’s body and death of a human being.

STL_Vet on January 24, 2012 at 4:37 PM

STL_Vet on January 24, 2012 at 4:37 PM

I read, a while back, about a pike, in Lake Geneva, and the man who caught it took too long to land it and is being charged with animal cruelty.

What a scr3wed up world.

EAT ARUGALA!!! Starve the critters to death!!

WryTrvllr on January 24, 2012 at 5:34 PM

canditaylor68 on January 24, 2012 at 11:02 AM

I am sorry for your daughter and your losses. May you find comfort in that those children were wanted by your daughter.

jazzuscounty on January 24, 2012 at 5:41 PM

He would.

That’s mainly because he has no conscience, and no appreciation of right and wrong.

He’s just sooo leftist, he must really admire himself to the point the royal family fights over mirrors.

dockywocky on April 29, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2