Alright, I don't get it.
Nixon is getting razzed because he said he was fine with abortion in cases where a white woman would otherwise be punished with a black child.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, was praised for saying that he didn't want his own black daughters to be punished with his (presumably) black grandchild.
And the difference is....????
Nixon was, once more, ahead of his time, channeling the One-der of the World.
See?
Big Tent Republicans and Democrats really CAN get along.
Richard Nixon was America's first Black President!
8 comments:
The difference, obviously, is that Nixon was talking specifically about a mixed-race child conceived by rape, whereas Obama was talking about his daughters fornicating and getting themselves pregnant. For Nixon, the race of the child's father was a factor in his support for murdering the child, whereas Obama's support for the murder his grandchild has nothing to do with his grandchild's race.
A bit too clever, Steve, though I understand the desire to mock and lampoon Obama.
Jordanes, in neither case does the speaker see the child conceived as a child, as human.
If either DID understand the child's humanity, neither would support abortion.
Nixon is the lesser of the two evils, for he refuses the humanity simply on the basis of race, while Obama refuses the humanity on the basis of age, regardless of race.
Indeed, it is worse than this, because Obama has already told fathers that they have responsibility from conception onward. So he clearly advocates the killing of his own grandchildren, sees those black babies as punishment, whereas Nixon never refers to the children conceived as punishment.
Although Nixon was a contender, Obama is much more a cold-blooded maniac than Nixon.
Seems I did something wrong when attempting to comment earlier.
Nixon's remark in a certain respect is worse, because he first acknowledges abortion is evil, but then justifies an exception based on his disgust for the mingling of the races.
That is, he consents to the possibility of abortion with full knowledge of its gravity.
Obama does not seem to have any moral reference. Every decision is in his own interest, period. If a pregnant daughter is an impediment to him, abortion is a good idea.
Brendan,
You raise an interesting question.
Which is worse?
1) The man who looks out for nothing and no one but himself, or
2) the man who occasionally looks out for others, but does not do so consistently?
I would say the second is closer to the Good than the first is.
Both are despicable and dangerous in different ways.
It is not just a question of being inconsistent. If we were speaking of a computer program, I would agree one that always returns an error would be worse than one that returns an occasional glitch.
But when speaking of human will, we speak not just of the objective gravity of the matter but also of knowledge and consent. There is a peculiar evil in consenting to things we know are absolutely wrong, and the character of one who does that as a pattern.
Obama does not really believe men have a responsibility beginning with conception. That sounds too much like a principle. That remark, in context, began with another autobiographical narrative, because it is all about him. He wishes his father had not abandoned him because he did not like it. So you fathers, do not do that too, go spend time with your children. Now I will go play golf (without mine) for Father's Day because I like it.
You are right, Obama's cold-blooded indifference to evil is horrifying to those of us with a conscience.
But what if one just as appalled as we are by the happenings in Iran, for example, would turn around and start listing cases where such a massacre of innocent people would be necessary? There is something less visible but very sinister there.
I won't argue whether it is Nixon's pro-abortion stance or Obama's pro-abortion stance that is morally worse -- I only know that Nixon has gone on to be judged, whereas Obama is right now working hard to make sure millions of more babies are killed.
I also need to correct my initial comment: Nixon wasn't just referring to children conceived by rape, but apparently was contemplating that women carrying half-black children be "allowed" (convinced, coerced?) into killing their children before birth.
I am of the opinion that freely throwing around the concept of killing one's own relatives is a completely different and more dangerous level of evil than killing a stranger's child, whatever the reason.
In light of Jordanes' and Patrick's comments I concede the point. There is something sick about a news media that will spend time listening to decades-old private recordings of a dead President hoping for something more to shame him, while remaining completely uncritical of the active President who says and does so much unconscionably and publicly, on a grand and immediate scale, every single day.
The similarities in what the two said should help clue them in, but doesn't.
Post a Comment