Christianity Today has an editorial on Obama's supposed efforts to reduce abortion entitled, "Reducing Abortion for Real."
Obama is suggesting that abortion is a human need, which can be reduced but never eliminated. He is suggesting that we all will "support" (meaning affirm the decisions of) women and families, even if they abort a child. He assumes that we all can unite, as he said in his Roe anniversary comment, "to ensure that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons," suggesting that abortion is not just a need but also a right.
It's savvy rhetoric precisely because it is so subtle. It quietly isolates pro-life advocates (who now appear extremist) while appealing to those who are tired of the abortion debate (with calls to reduce abortion).
In an editorial, Archbishop Joseph Naumann carefully explains why he asked Governor Kathleen Sebelius to refrain from presenting herself for communion. The Kansas City Star titles his editorial, "Archbishop Naumann attacks Sebelius over abortion."
At the Huffington Post, Michelle Kayal explains her decision to donate any "leftover" embryos (if she and her husband had any - she didn't) for stem cell research.
Which left Option No. 2. Donate the embryos to research.Apparently, they loved their embryonic children too much to risk having them be adopted by a "family that might not be able to care for them -- or worse." Michelle claims she thought of her embryos as children but I wonder if she would have chosen the same option with a born child? "We love little Billy too much for him to be adopted, instead we'll donate him to be killed for medical research."
We checked the box.
Because we're heartless monsters who wish death on our babies? No. Just the opposite. Because we love our children too much.