Obama and the abortion debate

Barack Obama told a national television audience during Rick Warren's presidential forum last year he doesn't have a clue about when life begins.

When asked the direct question, he replied: "That's above my pay grade."

I assume that response means, in Obama's mind, life could very well begin at conception. He certainly cannot say it does not.

Nevertheless, throughout his political career and continuing into his presidency, he has pursued policies of government coercion to ensure the following:

• That no baby that survives an abortion should be given any assistance to survive. It is Obama's view that medical personnel be required to neglect the child, withholding any life-giving sustenance or aid;
• That medical personnel who have conscientious objections to abortion be forced to participate in them any way;
• That taxpayers, more than half of whom, according to the latest Gallup Survey, object to killing unborn babies, be forced to pay for them any way – both in the United States and through foreign aid for so-called "family planning programs";
• That all limitations and restrictions on abortion imposed at the state level be rendered null and void – including those on "partial-birth" procedures;
• That those peacefully protesting abortion and counseling women against the procedures should have their First Amendment-guaranteed rights to free speech and freedom of religion substantially restricted.

TRENDING: Dems' 'loyalty through fear' program: Saddam would be proud

Nevertheless, despite that record – and despite his own admission that he does not know when human life begins – Obama insists he wants only to have a civil dialogue about abortion. That's what he told a Notre Dame audience last weekend.

Get "Taking America Back," Joseph Farah's manifesto for moral renewal, sovereignty and self-reliance.

He said it's time for common ground on the issue and an approach to the life-and-death debate with "open hearts, open minds and fair-minded words."

Common ground?

How about this for common ground?

Since you admit you don't know when human life begins, err on the side of caution. First, do no harm. Don't take the chance that you are destroying millions of actual people through your reckless promulgation of abortion on demand.

That would be common ground.

I don't mind that there are people who disagree with me about abortion. What upsets me is that there are people who carry them out.

Even worse is that these people carry them out and make me complicit in their crimes against humanity and against God.

How about this for common ground?

No one should be forced to participate in a procedure they consider to be murder. We don't force pacifists to go to war. Neither should we force people who believe abortion is murder to pay for them or participate in them.

There have been other divisive moral issues like this in America's past. Slavery was one. Would Obama have called on opponents of slavery to approach the issue with "open hearts, open minds and fair-minded words"?

Somehow I don't think so.

Obama can't argue the morality of abortion. He can't make the case that killing babies somehow serves the greater good. So, instead, he seeks to change the subject – make it about "civil dialogue."

I'll have a civil dialogue with anyone who wants one on the issue of abortion – especially if the will of the people on the matter will decide it in the end. But Obama won't hear of that. He insists high priests in black robes decide what is right and wrong. He insists popular opinion and laws duly passed by legislators be overruled.

He's content to allow you to dialogue on the issue, as long as he gets to make policy and force it down your throat.

That's tyranny, not dialogue.

And that's why I check my "open mind" at the door on this life-and-death issue.