Tim Graham, of NRO’s Media Blog caught this gem from Obama’s essay in Parade Magazine about fatherhood. I think Obama’s going to need his teleprompter to even write his essays now too. Here’s what Obama wrote:
That is why we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one.
Uh…Did Obama just say fatherhood starts at conception?
Yup. He did.
So it’s not above Obama’s pay grade to decide when fatherhood begins but when a baby becomes a baby is confusing?
And if you’re a father at conception, what exactly are you a father of? A potential baby? I can hear it now “Congratulations, you’re the proud father of a brand new potential baby!”
I love the whole “potential life” argument I’ve heard so often. Even Bill O’Reilly used it last week when defending his pro-choice stance. A potential life? What the heck is that? And these are the people who say they’re are all about science? Let me check out my old science textbooks and look up “potential life.” I’d bet I’d find something about Mars and that’s about it.
The whole pro-choice argument is a house of cards that depends on catchphrases, slogans and obfuscation to continue.
But, in the end, none of this means anything to Obama. He’s not interested in truth. Just as Pundette said, “What it really means is . . . nothing. Any connection between Obama’s words and truth are coincidental.”
June 23, 2009 at 5:11 pm
It must a deep reassurance to know that any sort of pro-life inroad made by a pro-choice person will be welcomed with sarcasm and derision. Are we really up for 7.5 more years of this?
That said, we should all realize the role of the father goes beyond the ability to complete a sexual act with a fertile woman.
Fathers also set their example, to their kids, to their peers, to their extended family, and to society by many acts during a pregnancy. A father is partly defined in the way he relates to and exchanges love and affection with the mother of his children. One might say that kind of witness starts before conception, or even the sexual act.
So Matthew, my suggestion is that if you can't focus on the good points President Obama is making without resorting to bitterness, we might be better off without your comments here. At worst, you perpetuate a pouty isolationism, completely ignoring the Pauline notion of rejoicing with the right.
From my pro-life perspective, the president comes off much, much better than you on this one.
June 23, 2009 at 5:20 pm
"The whole pro-choice argument is a stack of cards that depends on catchphrases, slogans and obfuscation to continue."
I know you think I'm insane and all, but I think you meant to say "house of cards".
Todd – there's nothing pouty or bitter about Matthew's analysis. Obama's words come with an expiration date – his actions are a much better indicator of his beliefs and objectives.
On face value, Obama's words sound nice. Comparing this quote with his "I wouldn't want my daughters punished with a child" begs the question, which one is the real Obama? As much as I would like to believe the "fatherhood begins at conception" line, I'm more inclined to go with the the other based on how he acts.
June 23, 2009 at 5:22 pm
The whole rest of the blogosphere is free of my comments. You're welcome to go check it out.
June 23, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Obama can be wikipedia'd to discover he's said anything about everything. He is always setting himself up as the reasonable man
But if we look at his actions, which defy his fair minded words, they are not supportive of the child in the womb or even the father of that child. Fathers have no rights until birth, to protect their children and this president seems unlikely to make that a priority.
You get about as much profound substance from this current leader of the free world's opinions on all things as you do from reading a Halmark Card.
They're meaningful if you have the feeling and the acts and the words of substance to flesh out whatever poetry is poured onto the page. Otherwise, it's a large dollop of artificially sweetened syrupy treacle. You can swallow it, but it's bad for you.
June 23, 2009 at 5:58 pm
On the other hand, we see his personal witness in his own family life. Clearly, he takes his responsibility as a father seriously. He doesn't seem to have ever procured an abortion for someone, so if we're looking at "actions," abortion doesn't seem to even be in play.
I take all pronouncements by politicians with a grain of salt, even including so-called GOP support for the unborn. That said, there's no reason to think the president's not providing something positive here, especially given our need to adhere in spirit, if not letter, to CCC 2478.
June 23, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Todd,
Actually, this is Matthew's and
Patrick's blog.
I don't think you have the authority to ban the from commenting here.
Just so you know.
June 23, 2009 at 6:47 pm
We're asking that the man be consistent which he isn't. If he has discerned that fatherhood starts at conception, then it follows that motherhood does as well, and therefore there is a person that has a mother and a father.
If that is so, then it is not okay to then say, it's alright not simply to exterminate those children as a choice, but to do so up until the day of birth and beyond. The fact that he has himself never paid for or procured for another abortion does not mean he is not culpable for 1) endorsing such actions 2) seeking funding for such actions 3) expanding the access to such actions and 4) ignoring his own moral reasoning.
If we look at his past inaction provocative stances against helping those born alive, if we look at his reversal of multiple policies which helped prevent the bulk of the country from being fiscally culpable for the killings of millions, then yes, the fact that he is nice to his own wife, children and dog holds very little weight. Do not tax collectors do as much?
June 23, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Let's be more clear on a few points. While I don't have a problem with people blogging and saying whatever leaps into their minds, bloggers who self-identify as Catholics do have certain responsibilities in presenting the Catholic faith accurately and honorably. While no blogger can be perfect, the blogging community does have a reponsibility to point out error. In fact, in some ways, it takes a certain glee in doing so. So when I suggest a different direction on other people's blogs, I do so not from the posture of having authority to command and receive a response.
CCC 2478 imposes on believers a certain code of conduct, both in public and in one's thoughts. Newt Gingrich becomes a Catholic, for example. I disagree with the man politically, but I am obliged to think well of his public witness of faith.
The commentariat conceded the president should be judged on his actions, not his words, then proceded to continue to judge him on selected words, not his actions. I merely point out the inconsistency of that approach.
As for his political support for freedom of choice, it's almost the same thing. As a legislator, he contributes as part of a body. (Some would say he hasn't contributed all that long–another point of inconsistency) He hasn't committed his own money to abortion, and as far as we can tell, has taken a fairly middle-of-the-road approach for a Democrat and a liberal.
Those who either praise or criticize the president 100% of the time marginalize themselves on his administration. Why would a person looking for serious criticism of the president attend to what a 100% critic would say? The critic will always oppose the man, so we only have to look at the news reports and deduce the president has done something wrong again. Instead of being a pro-life witness, your commentary becomes a political campaign against the president. Now, if you opt for politics above church teaching, that's your cafeteria choice. But just be clear and honest you are who you say you are as you address these issues.
June 23, 2009 at 7:34 pm
bloggers who self-identify as Catholics do have certain responsibilities in presenting the Catholic faith accurately and honorably.
It is amazing to me that someone of Todd Flowerday's pedigree is now choosing to decide who is presenting an "accurate and honorable" presentation of the Catholic faith. That, my friends, is high-larious.
June 23, 2009 at 7:43 pm
"Instead of being a pro-life witness, your commentary becomes a political campaign against the president. Now, if you opt for politics above church teaching, that's your cafeteria choice."
Dadgummit! That is the funniest thing I have read in weeks! This is an absolute brilliant parody of Catholic Obama supporters twisted version of logic.
Well done!
June 23, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Todd, I saw that quote about Obama (the one quoted in the post) and even I thought "Oh geez, eh? What a confused individual if on one hand he can't tell when life begins yet on the other, demands men to step up to the plate at conception." I don't see Matthew as being so rude as you wish to point out, but rather he's just pointing out both the truth and obvious.
I'm not going to go digging into Catholic doctrine and codes and such but I'm pretty certain that the Church allows us to ascertain on our own how we feel and think about someone that has gone above and beyond supporting abortion. However, please do NOT sit on your high horse and demand from me, a post abortive woman that had suffered for YEARS from a forced abortion I had, and tell me that I need to be nice to Obama for all his pro-abortion crap he's pushed through and pushing onto ME to pay for. I sit here and watch him wanting to DESTROY women. By the way, do you pay taxes? Then YES, even YOU have paid for an abortion thanks to Obama's policies.
Thanks for the insult. While I pray for a change of heart for Obama, I pray that my voice and all the others like it would make him reflect on what he does NOT want for his daughters.. I pray he changes his mind about abortion. So while I pray for him, I will not support him and I will be damned to have someone like you telling me I need to be nice. That's as rude as a Nazi patting a Jew on the head and saying "Oh Hitler isn't THAT bad…you're still alive so you should be thankful." I'm not revengeful, I've gone through my healing processes (Rachel Vineyard retreats are GREAT) but it also doesn't mean I have to think kindly of Obama's abortion policies.
We Christians are ALWAYS praying "for the man"… but until Obama starts to act like a man and a worthy President, the only support he'll get from me is through prayers. Otherwise, it is my Catholic duty to oppose him in every legal avenue I possibly can.
Sorry Matthew and Patrick… I didn't mean to go on like this. Todd, I'm sure you're a good person and I understand you mean well, but you come across with a condescending tone without realizing the subject matter of which you speak and I take it personally when people such as myself are being told that we have to accept Obama.
June 23, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Did Obama just say fatherhood starts at conception?
No he didn't.
Yea, I was about to post the same thing. Obama said "their job doesn't end at conception"
For all we know he thinks the "job" at conception takes place and then "fatherhood" begins 9 months later…maybe. Unless he's a responsible sort of fella who steps up to the plate and pays for an abortion.
June 23, 2009 at 8:13 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
June 23, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Amazingly he has used this point at least once before, Father's Day 2008 on the campaign trail. It's mind blowing! The argument I hear so often is 'if you want it it's a baby and if you don't it's not.' I wish someone would honestly and critically ask the President to explain his contradictions.
June 23, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Todd's polite rant reminds me of Rules for Radicals where the "opponent's" values are used against them… Those bloggers who aren't nice to Obama by recognizing his works of Wunder are not being civil….
Todd and friends are losing on the issues, so they try to silence people by saying that they aren’t being civil or reasonable or tolerant.
Check out Father Z 's analysis
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/06/response-to-america-magazines-editorial-community-of-disciples-22-june-2009/
June 23, 2009 at 9:21 pm
While I was pleased about the "responsibility doesn't stop at conception" bit, I was taken aback by precisely how much this man regards his own image, and how condescending it was for him to accuse the majority of American fathers of shirking responsibility for their progeny. America isn't all 'hood or barrio (at least not yet) and even in those places, the message is still patronizing.
June 23, 2009 at 9:50 pm
"Uh…Did Obama just say fatherhood starts at conception?
No he didn't. You just heard what you wanted to hear.
It'd be great if he finally got that though…" -Anonymous June 23, 2009 2:50 PM
What else could he have meant? For something to end, it must start at some point in time. Since he said (1) a father's job does not end at conception, (AND) (2) a man becomes a father when he has a child, and (3) a father’s job starts when he has a child, it is logical to conclude that he meant that the beginning point (start) of fatherhood (in order to have an end) is at conception (the starting point). In reality, he's seems to be saying that the same point cannot be the start and end of fatherhood (to perhaps create cog. dissonance to listener), and that fatherhood should not end until some point after conception.
He also said this here and on my blog here ("Abortion is Just War for Obama":
"…I think the better answer, and this was reflected in the Democratic platform, is to figure out how do make sure that young mothers or women who have a pregnancy that's unexpected or difficult have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices including adoption…."
Did he say "young mothers" have to decide if they want an abortion (i.e., kill their child)? Does he think the mothers are carrying their child (not assuming at conception, but before birth)? (Note he says “pregnancy” and not “child”.)
June 23, 2009 at 10:42 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
June 24, 2009 at 1:51 am
A year ago he also said fatherhood begins at conception.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13098
Please don't expect him to be consistent between what he says and how he votes – that would expect way too much. Even as a politician who have a low connection threshold on this, he is even looser.
June 24, 2009 at 3:53 am
matthew,
you hinted that Bill O'Reilly was defending the pro-choice stance. Is this true, did he change his mind? I haven't heard anything about it, but I always thought he was pro-life. Then again I never liked o'reilly much anyway.