Monday, May 18, 2009

Applying the Golden Rule to Abortion

Obama's speech writers just amaze me--the twisting and distorting of the English language is just stunning. I was driving home from the coffee shop this morning and wasn't fast enough to push the button when the news clip of Obama's speech at Notre Dame came on and I caught his recitation of the number of religions that cling to the Golden Rule, "Do unto others. . . " In the context of abortion it was such a distortion of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. I was afraid I might cause an accident. I'm not sure there is a major religion that gives this one a pass.
    ... the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule - the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.
Some people's moments are a bit briefer than others, it seems.

Just what is the "Golden Rule?" Usually it's a reference to Jesus' statement in Matthew 7:12/Luke 6:31. "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." Who in the world wishes death and dismemberment on himself?

Confucius' negative slant was "What you do not like if done to yourself, do not to others," and Isocrates said, "Do not do to others that at which you would be angry if you suffered it from others." Rabbi Hillel said, "Whatsoever you would that men should not do to you, do not that to them" and it appears in Leviticus 19:18.

For Christians, however, Jesus takes it to an understanding of the highest good, for the self and for others. He is calling us to anticipate the well-being of another--and in the context of the speech a very helpless "other." I'm often shocked when liberals, progressives, marxists and feministas will claim that the aborted child would have lived a life of poverty, pain, or disease and therefore the abortion is an act of mercy and good. Really? You mean the 40 or 50 million abortions since Roe v. Wade was all about malformed or poor children, and not malformed values and self-centered fears? I only know a few mothers who have aborted their babies, and it was with deep regret, and it certainly wasn't because of poverty or disease or mental retardation. Carrying the child to term and placing it with an adoptive family certainly would have been an option.

If death were such a great solution for poverty, why in the world are we putting all this time, money and effort into poverty programs (especially those that don't work--like the government handouts). Just kill the poor people when we know for sure they aren't viable tax payers, if that's your motivation! And you guys try to make Republicans look bad just because they suggest a welfare to work program. Talk about screwed up values!

The Obama administration has gone to a great deal of effort to destroy the livelihood of many well-off, well-educated, talented people--for no reason other than they were rich people who supplied jobs and investment opportunities for others. So if they kill off the potentially poor before they are born, and the unacceptably rich after they are successful, who will they come for next. You?


Anonymous said...

Wow its amazing how you got all of that out of a simple qoute. No ill will intended or meant but I'm just wondering if maybe its possible that you took his words wrong or misinterpretted them. I myself do not agree with abortion. And the last part you said about Obama wanting to destroy the livlihood of the rich, do you honestly believe that? Your opinion interest me and I would like to know why you feel that way so that i can better understand. But I found your post very informational, though I think you took his words out of context.

Norma said...

I'm not sure what you think was taken out of context. His position on abortion, including late term abortion which provides for killing a viable infant, is well known. It's more extreme than any member of Congress. There were protests at Notre Dame because it is a Catholic university. And he said what he said about the Golden Rule. So which context are you concerned about?

And what would you call his attempts to destroy a market economy if not hostility for the rich and middle class?