Sacred Sex and Common Ground: How Obama Won Abortion Part of the Debate

This was Obama's worst performance overall but I thought one of his strongest moments was when the discussion, at long last, came to a "values" issue -- abortion.

The key point to remember is that in a debate like this, at this late date in a campaign, the political goal is to position oneself as sensible and mainstream. McCain scored points that would appeal to pro-life activists, while Obama kept relentlessly focused on the ambivalent middle. McCain went after Obama; Obama went after undecided voters.

The discussion began with McCain on the offense, painting Obama as the extremist. McCain focused on the two issues in which Obama seems most out of the mainstream -- the "born alive" bill, involving babies born during abortions and late term abortions. Obama did an adequate job defending himself but still let McCain define the terms of the debate at that point.

McCain meanwhile headed toward the middle by emphasizing not that he opposes abortion but rather that he wants the states to decide the issue. No extremism there.

But for the rest of the abortion discussion, Obama outflanked McCain. It was Obama who made the call for finding common ground by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and sent the dial-meters soaring by saying children should be taught that "sexuality is sacred." That one phrase probably did more to cast Obama as a cultural moderate than anything he's said in all the debates.

McCain used language that would thrill pro-life activists but either alienate or confuse most centrist voters. For instance, when Obama said he would support a ban on late term abortion if it includes an exception for the health of the mother, McCain gleefully pounced on what he - and pro life activists -- view as a slippery dodge by Obama. Aha! That's just the sneaky way that pro-choice activists gut a partial birth ban, activists were cheering at home. But to a typical American, not steeped in the linguistic battles of the abortion wars, it was Obama who sounded reasonable and McCain who seemed uncaring and extreme.

McCain referred to those who are pro-choice as being "pro-abortion" -- a turn of phrase commonly used by pro-life activists -- but which may grate on the large chunk of Americans who view themselves as pro choice but not at all pro-abortion. Obama tapped that sentiment by talking about it as a difficult moral issue and saying "nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation."

And on Roe v. Wade, Obama finally used phrasing that seemed straightforward and clear. For most of the campaign, he's talked about "overturning Roe" and "protecting Roe" as if he were still lecturing at law school.

This time he said it in clear terms: he believes that the Constitution has a right to privacy.

McCain, meanwhile, gave an answer on judicial appointments that was confusing or even duplicitous. He started off clearly stating that he would impose no litmus test on abortion, selecting judges only on the basis of experience and judgment. But at the very end of the riff he said that, of course, a judge who supported Roe would be demonstrating a disqualifying amount of bad judgment. In other words, he does have a pro-life litmus test. I don't think most people will pick up on the contradiction the way an abortion-obsessive like myself did but I do think the passage sounded confusing.

What's the importance of this one abortion exchange? The hardcore pro-life or pro-choice voters have long since decided who they're voting for (and this debate will probably energize activists on both sides to work a bit harder for their guy). But the real prize is the undecided voter, who by definition tends to be in the middle. They'll likely go for the man who grabs the center. They're not culture warriors.

Specifically, I think this evening will help Obama close the deal with some centrist Catholics who are leaning toward Obama because of the economy but wary about his position on abortion. They didn't need to be convinced Obama is pro-life; they just needed to be convinced he wasn't an extremist. If he seems moderate and reasonable then they'll feel like they have permission to vote for him.

All in all, McCain won the battle to most thrill the activists but Obama got the bigger prize: he defined himself as a reasonable seeker of the common ground.

.

SPECIAL: WOULDA, COULDA ADDENDUM: For pro-lifers, McCain's big lost opportunity was to point out that Obama's support of the Freedom of Choice Act would wipe out many centrist abortion restriction laws, undermining Obama's "abortion reduction" efforts. For pro-choicers, Obama's big lost opportunity was failing to paint McCain as an abortion "extremist" by tethering him to the Republican platform, which calls for a ban on all abortion, including in cases of rape and incest.

Plus: The transcript of the abortion portion of the debate.

Cross-posted from Beliefnet.com

Read more reactions to the Obama-McCain Hofstra Presidential Debate from HuffPost bloggers

Comments

[stayinsouth1981]

My privacy is a constitutional issue that had to be taken to the Supreme Court. I am not about to move to another state because my state is governed by a bunch of creationists who believe that life begins at conception and each egg is sacred. How on earth will we make sure EVERY fertilized egg is implanted in a host? How many are sitting on ice?

I can't tell you when is too late and I begin to see an embryo as a fetus as a baby. I know that hormonal birth control is not a contraceptive. Fertilization CERTAINLY has occurred in mothers on pills, etc. One of its actions is to make the endometrial lining incapable of supporting the fertilized egg or growing embryo. If that is not some form of abortion, I don't understand the definition. I keep asking, what's the difference between hormonal or chemical before two weeks gestation and mechanical within the first few months? WHERE IS THE LINE PEOPLE?

[karebarron]

"I don't think most people will pick up on the contradiction the way an abortion-obsessive like myself did but I do think the passage sounded confusing.­"

Mr. Waldman, I am not abortion-obsessive, but I am probably like most people, and I certainly picked up on it. I am also an attorney, so parsing words is in my nature, but it was very clear to the naked ear that McCain was speaking out of both sides of his mouth--one side was to the base, wink, wink, Roe v. Wade is going down, The other side was to the rest of us: I'll apply no litmus test, I'm Mr. Fair with no agenda, women need not fear me. People are listening!

[mari2JJ]

Truer words were never spoken. The problem with McCain is that he is NOT pro-life. He is only pro-birth. He cares less if the child has sufficient nutrition or health care. His dogged adherence to the far right dogma makes him part of the birth 'em and leave 'em crowd. If he cares so much for the infant in the womb, then it is inconsistent for him to blab on and on about welfare moms and assistance programs, and nutrition programs for the poor in our schools and adequate medical care for all. He simply has these pro, far right buzz words but has no innate compassion for kids at the very bottom of our socio-economic groups. If he actually practiced what he preaches, he would show far more concern about the physical and medical needs and well being of EVERY child. Otherwise he is all talk and no action and that is exactly what he is.

[stayinsouth1981]

Yeah, no kidding.. Let the prolife line up as prospective foster care parents, too. They have already passed their own MORALITY tests.

[CitizenE]

This is such a loaded issue: however, if men are pro life, then they should recognize until the day that 50% + of the primary baby, child, and adolescent parenting is a man's responsibility, parenting being work, and hard work at that if it's to be done right, this remains the longest standing slavery issue in the world. This is without taking into consideration that every woman is the possessor of her own body, not the state. We know what happens when abortions are outlawed. The world is what it is. And finally, until those people who are prolife are protesting as vigorously against the death penalty and war, I will remain cynical about how deeply they feel about creating a culture of life.

On the other side, which of us alive, who love life, would go back in time and give that all up?

That is to say, both sides of this issue come at it from profoundly moral and compassionate positions. Pro-choice positions do not negate bringing a baby to term; however, pro life advocates often claim a self righteous high ground, as if they had the corner on morality, a profoundly insulting point of view.

[MPCarr]

On abortion, Obama and all unborn children are the losers. Obama has the most radical abortion stance of any politicians in the country, to the left of even NARAL and Barbara Boxer.

He lied about his vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act last night. He does want babies who are outside of the womb, born after a botched abortion, to be left to die, because the bill against this might upset Roe v. Wade.

I understand Democrats don't care about this or any negative aspects of Obama's career. They just want their head in thesand, voting for a candidate they don't know about.

[fedupwiththis]

Just so I'm certain I understand you. If a doctor removes an inflamed appendix because it endangered the patient should it rupture, you feel that tissue should be preserved with all available measures? It's alive. It's about the same size as most aborted fetuses. Please explain how you determine the difference empirically. Is it the potential to become a functioning human being? If so all women of child bearing age would be forced to take extreme measures every month during their menses to preserve the potential human in the form of the egg.

If you cannot answer, I understand. These are difficult questions to answer. I therefore prefer to not dictate the answers to other people. I prefer the decision be made, as Senator Obama said"by the individual women in consultation with her physician and spiritual councilor, as appropriat­e." Gosh! That does sound extreme, or does it?

[ADR]

Just so I understand you: You pretty much say an embryo at the beginning of a pregnancy is just like an appendix. What about closer to the end of a pregnancy -- is it still just like an appendix to you? Has life begun by the time a full-term fetus is just a few minutes from being born -- or not? People here are having trouble answering that question for some reason...

[aluxeterna]

look, these aren't difficult questions to answer for anyone who cares. your callousness and your lack of grade-school scientific education merely makes YOU and the rest of us on HuffPo look bad. Thanks for not moving forward the conversation.

[mulegino]

Please, comparing a viable fetus to a diseased appendix is a bit much. Whatever your definition of "person" is, "person" in the legal, moral or societal context, you cannot deny that a viable fetus is, indisputably, a human life. There is no reason whatsoever to kill a viable fetus that can be delivered safely. None. Waits in adoption agencies can be several years, if not longer.
What the pro-abortion extremists (I am not referring to the more reasonable "pro-choice" people who regard abortion as a necessary evil, or a personal decision that should not be subject to the scope of government) are asking is that the mother have the same rights as the old Roman "paterfamilias"-the father in pre-Christian Roman law had the right to kill his newborn offspring-if that offspring did not meet with his approval. What a ghastly redux-full circle from infanticide under the rubric of paternal authority to infanticide as a challenge to patriarchy!

[BannedFromCommenting]

"He lied about his vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act last night. He does want babies who are outside of the womb, born after a botched abortion, to be left to die, because the bill against this might upset Roe v. Wade."

Really?? And where did you dig up that bit of information? You have a source that is legitimate and not funded by right wingers? I doubt it. He answered last night, you just chose NOT to believe him.
And if a baby could survive they would just do a c-section, not an abortion, but , no you rather the mom die, than the baby who probably stands a 90% chance of dying anyway, being poked with needles, and such in a futile effort to save its life..imma­ture lungs, and all struggling to breathe.

And who are you to say Democrats do not care? Do you speak to every single one in the United states to make such a statement to speak for all of them?

[springsm]

Yes, it is a lie...but the prolife fundies do alot of that. And I too resent that democrats or progressives DO NOT CARE. And it is the same democrats and progressives who are first out of the block to want to help and care for those children that are born in dior circumstances too. It is the hysteria of that group that conjurs up ugly screaming men and women...pe­ople I don't want to ever get near.

[McBushMcSame]

MPCarr just makes up information as they go along.

[jcsophie]

He did lie about his vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. It's factual information that anyone can look up. Maybe you should look for another source of information. His answer at the debate was deceptive. He, as a human being, may not wish to let a baby die from a botched abortion, but his vote (meant to satisfy his pro-choice supporters) indicates otherwise. A fact is a fact. And, he doesn't have the b**** to look the American public through the camera lense and explain his vote.

[Michele Swenson - Huffpost Blogger]

The right focuses on the more easily sensationalized issue of abortion, all the while opposing just as adamantly contraceptiion - a primary means of reducing numbers of abortion. I would like to see McCain and other Republicans challenged on their broader agenda, including opposition to birth control, and their cavalier treatment of women's health.

I believe that abortion serves as surrogate for many unspoken issues, as I said in a former post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-swenson/abortion-surrogate-for-un_b_123617.html

[ADR]

The "Born Alive Bill"

Let me get this straight: A doctor is performing an abortion -- a procedure intended to kill the baby. However, if somehow that baby makes it out alive during this process, then the doctor is supposed to save it? What?! So, because the baby was hidden inside the mother it is perfectly fine to kill the baby? But, as soon as it makes it outside, where it is not hidden from view, then it is not OK to kill the baby? What kind of sick logic is that?

[dynagirl7371]

I could be wrong, but... I think some abortions are induced with drugs that intent for the woman's body to expel the baby on its own (or with the help of the contraction inducing drugs). I would assume that this is done in the doctor's office. Perhaps some of the babies are still viable when the are "born" (I'm not even sure what language to use right now, weird), rather than deceased. In those cases, the doctor would have the dilema we're talking about.

[crazyv]

I have never understood how somebody who opposes abortion under any and all circumstances is considered an extremist , while those who would ban except under certain conditions are considered moderate. Either the fetus/zygo­te/embroyo is life in which case how it was conceived is irrelevant and we should protect it under any and all circumstances or it is not.
It would appear to me that those who view at as life but would allow it to be killed under certain circumstances because it is "more politically" palatable are the true extremists devoid of any moral position. It would be as though we freed 9 out of 10 slaves!
I am pro choice because as Sen. Obama clearly articulated it is not possible to determine with specificity either scientifically or theologically when life begins- there is no consensus amongst religious faiths when that moment is. Under those circumstances it best left to individual consciencess to decide.

[Milhouse]

The flaw, as I see it, in your argument, is that in the case of a slave, only his or her own life is involved. With a pregnancy, there are 2 lives (or, if you like, one certain and one undefined life) involved. The question of personal and private choice, even for those who are certain that a human life exists from conception, has to do with which one should take precedence "under and all circumstan­ces."

[jtmtrini]

There is a flaw in your argument as well. In actuality, in the case of slavery, there wasn't just 1 life involved. It's interesting that someone compared the abortion issue to slavery. Slaves were owned property, the same as a chair or house. So when a slave was pregnant, even though back then there was no discussion on whether it was an embryo or fetus or baby, it was just property. So the slave had no say in the matter. It was the masters decision if she had the baby and if she would get to keep it once born. Fast foward to the 21st century and we are still arguing and discussing what a woman should or shouldn't be allowed to do with her own body. People need to realize that governing if a woman must have a child is delegating her to slave status; to nothing but a brood mare. And yes I know people want to talk about the irresponsible women who are promiscuous and use abortion as a form of birth control. Yes this does happen. But the larger picture to me, says that government has no right telling a people what they can and can't do with their own body. It starts with abortion but what's next?

[ADR]

"... it is not possible to determine with specificity either scientifically or theologically when life begins..."

So, you and Sen. Obama are saying that a full-term baby that is a just few minutes from being birthed does not have life? Interestin­g...

[dynagirl7371]

no, what crazyv is saying is that we're incapable of determining yadda, yadda, yadda when life begins.

What I find interesting is how you read that and were able to interpret it into what you did...

[jagoneely]

This was also my favorite Obama moment of the debate. He was thoughtful. And his comment about constitutional right to privacy...­FINALLY, someone gives a hoot about that Great Old Document that began our democratic journey. Bush used the Constitution for toilet paper. McCain called himself a 'federalist" when he meant "anti-federalist" so he's needs a history re-deux.

[MM216]

You know what, if you are against abortion then don't get an abortion. Just CHOOSE to "say no".
I won't take away your choice....­as long as you don't take away mine, either.

[johjac]

My sentiments EXACTLY!

[sf girl]

I, like you, caught McCain's contradiction at the end of his rambling answer and I'm so glad someone brought it up. McCain does a lot of this double-talk and he is rarely called out on it. It's almost as if he doesn't have a clear position on major issues so he just muddles through an answer that will appeal to all sides, hoping that folks will only pick up on the answer they want to hear and ignore all the other stuff he said.

[DofG]

The irony of the abortion debate is that it should not even be a debate! Just recently, I laid out, on H.P., a predication, and rationale, that exposes this unnecessary argument as merely a struggle of ideological dominance by people who ignore science, religious actuality, and common sense. Even if one argues a pro-life position based on religious doctrine, there is just as much evidence within religious doctrine to make an opposing argument. It's all of matter how much effort a person is willing to devote towards learning the substance of multiple disciplines. But most people, instead, find it easier to merely settle for an uninformed bias, which leads to all of the negative back-and-forth.

I will not rehash all of this out, for it might not get posted anyawy. But for those who wish to make their own search should start with a simple question: Can "something" come from absolutely "nothing". If one finds that the answer is no! Then, the beginning of life cannot be discerned, nor can life itself be truly explained!

[ADR]

"...the beginning of life cannot be discerned.­.."

Then maybe you're not alive?

[DofG]

Maybe the word "conceived" would have been a better term. At any rate, a derogative statement is not an objective predication to refute a thesis! Furthermore, my thesis does not come out of "thin air", and has a conceptual history dating back thousands of years.

Thanks for your response.

[Teen4Obama 08]

Ftw? You're making yourself sound...hm­m, I'm not sure how I'd like to put this....we­ll you're making an ass out of yourself. No offense.

[LeonBNJ]

The sad part it that the issue of abortion is well below the important issues of the day and what our Presidents can affect. As to Supreme Court and other Federal Judge appointments, I am more concerned as to their views on business regulation, labor rights, states rights (which ties in with abortion) rather than a litmus test as to abortion.
Yes, there is a very deep moral issue about abortion and we have one of the highest rates of abortion in the world that needs to be reduced. Obama spoke more like most Americans, not of the extemeists, an important thing we need to see in more of our political leaders.

[MeiLing]

We may have one of the highest rates of abortion, but where do our numbers sit in terms of unwanted children?

The glass can be half empty or half full, depending on where you stand on the issue!

[LemonMeringue]

Because we have the absolute worst sex education and the worst health care system and the most backward attitude about sex in the developed world!

Abortion and unwanted children come from that.

In Europe kids get sex education in school, attitudes are more tolerant, teenagers start having sex later, and unwanted pregnancy rates are lower.

America could learn something. But alas, the religious right is in the way.

[Lombard1006]

How do pro-lifers look at these situations? Can an argument be made to criminally prosecute all women who miscarry a child due to negligence or accident when the mother is clearly at fault? Some states now have laws for unborn child homicide. So if a pregnant woman causes a car accident and this results in a miscarriage, should she be tried for vehicular homicide? If a woman does not follow doctor's orders resulting in an early birth and subsequent death of the child, should she be brought up on criminal charges? If a woman repeatedly gets pregnant and miscarries, should she be brought up on charges of neglect because she repeatedly causes the death of a fetus due to an insufficient environment in which to nurture a pregnancy? It's a slippery slope but I do wonder why the pro-life movement has not been aggressive on these fronts particulary with higher incidences of children born addicted and the opposition in some quarters to fertility treatments. For the record, I am pro-choice and believe any matter of health or pregnancy is between a woman and her doctor.

[mergina]

Any MAN who agrees that NO MAN has the right to tell ANY WOMAN what to do with her own body and life has won my vote.

[Usedtobequiet]

Well said!

[Kishadawn]

I prefer the argument that the government should not be able to say to a pregnant woman

"you have no right to an abortion unless I say so".

I personally do not believe in abortion, but I am pro-choice. Biden made a point to say that he has his own faith in his own religion and the government has no right to instill his personal faith on every American. Isn't that why America was founded in the first place, religious freedom?

Anti-Abortion activists argue that the life starts at a certain point by FAITH. How can you separate church and state with that argument?

[alsm9]

Totally agree! I find it so offensive that more often than not, I see men weighing in on this issue. It's simply none of their business. No uterus, no periods, no cramps, no pregnancy, etc....NO SAY! Every pregnancy is a risk to a woman's life, even now, so no one should be able to force a woman to keep a faetus and carry it to term.

[jthornton21]

Not that it ties in directly to the abortion talk but McCain said the Obama voted against confirming Breyer to the Supreme Court, except Obama wasnt even in Congress at that point. Must have been confused.
Obamas final explanation, no one is Pro Abortion. It is a tough decision, and a woman I know who had one still cries on what would have been her childs due date. The real question for all these pro lifers is "Do you think it is your right to tell a woman what to do with her body?"