Michelle Obama and Unconditional Love
Published originally at The American Catholic.
I stayed up last night to watch the First Lady’s speech. It intrigues me to study how people think, especially people I disagree with. Sometimes it is possible to follow a logical path and clarify where disagreement begins and ends, sometimes I just want to know how bad it is, which is usually when I need my husband to put his hand over my mouth before I…never mind.
So, I sat there propped up in the bed with a glass of Rex-Goliath Giant 47 Pound Rooster Free Range Red and a sleeping toddler next to me to see what the First Lady of the Free World had to say as I waited for my husband to finish up his end-of-the day rituals. Here’s one particular smashery of logic and language that just gets my goat every single time.
She used that lovely phrase unconditional love. I — a Catholic mother who scrubs, chases, sweats, lectures, and pleads for mercy when the truckload of kids and piles of laundry finally break me each day — take that term seriously. In the abortion debate no one who thinks abortion is acceptable is allowed to use that term. In this day and age of political correctness, is it too much to insist on verbal correctness too? Words mean things.
But when Barack started telling me about his family – that’s when I knew I had found a kindred spirit, someone whose values and upbringing were so much like mine.
You see, Barack and I were both raised by families who didn’t have much in the way of money or material possessions but who had given us something far more valuable – their unconditional love, their unflinching sacrifice and the chance to go places they had never imagined for themselves.
Her family gave her unconditional love? Really? It’s true, children are incapable of earning the love of their parents, and love should be given to them without limit, without being subject to any conditions or stipulations. It should be absolute and complete. That term demands no compromise. To place a condition on being loved, is to destroy the notion of unconditional love altogether. It is impossible for a parent to say, “I love my children unconditionally, but only if I want them.” Being wanted is a condition.
If she’s so grateful for the unflinching sacrifice and the chance to go places she never imagined that her family gave her, why then, does she think that mothers in America today shouldn’t do the same for their children? That is exactly what abortion advocate after dissonant abortion advocate stands for – the denial of unflinching sacrifice and unconditional love. Dismembering the tiniest and most defenseless of the children you deem unworthy of life is not an act of love.
So the First Lady and her husband may be kindred spirits with the same values, but they have left behind the upbringing they claimed influenced their early lives together (which is contested). It’s no secret that both stand for abortion, but they have both failed to bring those virtues that they credit for their success into the present administration.
By the time she finished telling about their personal struggles, people were in tears. It was with no small chill down my tired spine that I heard the biggest eruption of applause of the whole speech.
And he believes that women are more than capable of making our own choices about our bodies and our health care … that’s what my husband stands for.
I watched to the end, through language about how this country was built by sacrifice, how the country is so “special,” how she wants to give our children a “foundation for their dreams,” and “that sense of limitless possibility,” and “that belief that here in America, there is always something better out there if you’re willing to work for it.” I listened right up to the, “Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.”
How can you say that when you don’t believe all children even have a right to be born? When you pick and chose which victims matter and which ones don’t?
I clicked off the television, scooped up my baby boy in the quiet of the night with my husband finally exhausted and sleeping next to me, all our children sprawled over each other in their beds (or somewhere in the house), and I said a prayer that America would not be punished with another four years of this powermongering nonsense. If we are, then I take some comfort at least in knowing that my children will know what that term means, and if they dare abuse it as adults to try to justify something evil, they’ll have a mother with her finger so pointed in their face, their eyes’ll cross.
Because I love them, unconditionally.
Category: Social Issues
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
I wish she had love in her heart for the millions of unborn babies that she thinks mothers should have the right to abort
I agree that Michelle Obama should not use the term “unconditional love”. I cannot think of truly unconditional love. All love that I know of is conditional. Maybe God can love unconditionally. The Bible suggests that he chooses not to do so. Jacob was loved by God. Esau was hated by God. So it seems that the identity of the person is a condition for God’s love.
You love your children. You probably do not love all children in the world. Your love is probably conditional upon identity. Existence is also probably a condition. If your children did not exist, it is unlikely that you could love them.
It seems that unconditional love is impossible for anyone except maybe God, and that unconditional love is not fitting for the Christian, Jewish and Muslim God.
It may be that conservative Christians have a more minimally conditional love than liberal Christians.
I stumbled upon your site through a link from another blog. Thank you for your well-formulated response to the First Lady’s speech and pointing out the flawed logic – that her particular form of unconditional love is dependent on a number of conditions: to be healthy, to be the correct gender, to be convenient, to be wanted. I am embarrassed that this trained lawyer can’t see the chasm in her own thinking.
And to Ace: We need to define love before you can modify it as conditional or unconditional. If love means being attracted to, feeling good about – then it isn’t unconditional because feelings change. But if love is defined as “Desiring the best for the other, as the other” then I maintain that we are all capable of this no-strings-attached variety. As a high school teacher I am in contact with dozens and dozens of young adults daily, many of whom drive me nuts. But in my years as I teacher I have never NOT desired the best for all of my students – and acted thereafter. True unconditional love it not a feeling, but a matter of the will – not easy, but not impossible either.
Unconditional love.
The age (minus or plus birthday), personality, condition, status, pleasantness, cost, or look of a person is irrelevant.
The fact that the person is loved by God and that you value God and want to do his will, gives you the command and motivation to love unconditionally – which is not the same as accepting behavior unconditionally.
so now love is defined as “desiring the best for the other, as the other”?
If that is the case, some will be gay, and that is what is best for them. And you must love them and their behavior because that is what is best for them.
I think Ace pretty much got it right.
As someone whose own love and morality are conditional upon a very narrow set of rules and guidelines, this has to be one of your more hypocritical and illogical posts, which is saying quite a bit because you have a definite talent for ignoring the elephant in the room, or the flaw in the blogpost as the case may be.
I say this with all sincerity. I hope all of your children are straight and I hope none of them are ever molested or raped, because no one deserves a mother who puts her theology above the well-being of her children, just as this country does not deserve another president who thinks his theology is more important than the well-being of the country.
We don’t need a mommy who wags her finger in our faces and tells us we have been naughty. We don’t even need a mother who will hold our hands and love us anyways, though that is always nice. We don’t need a metaphorical parent, especially not in the guise of the government.
Love is trust. We need a leadership that trusts women to make the right decision for themselves and their families. Whether you like it or not, abortion will happen, making it illegal merely kills women, as well as whatever children they might or not might not, a point that most pro-lifers fail to understand.
“…. abortion will happen, making it illegal merely kills women, as well as whatever children they might or not might not, a point that most pro-lifers fail to understand.”
An argument has to be judged by all it’s possible applications. You are also saying that making murder illegal is useless because it “will happen”.
“An argument has to be judged by all it’s possible applications.”
Do you just expect people to wake up and take responsibility for their behavior and take care of their unwanted children, or do you have a real world, applicable policy to put forth that can replace abortion as the answer to our social ills?
“…do you have a real world, applicable policy”
Revert to pre-legal abortion social responsibility. Abortion was an answer to the question, how can I maximize my fun if I have to worry about a baby if my contraception fails?
When you mandate pre-legal abortion, will you expect people to just stop having fun, wake up and take responsibility for their unwanted children?
Do you see any consequences to children being raised by unfit parents? How do you tackle this social ill?
I think you are nearly as old as I am, and will remember pre-abortion days. Which parents are you referring to that needed to have their babies killed?
Firstly Howard, I don’t believe abortion all about shirking responsibility, for fun. Secondly, I don’t believe making abortion illegal means that it no longer happens, nor that people suddenly start being good parents. And lastly, I don’t believe the 1950′s were the golden age of morality. In fact, I think our problems of selfishness started with the baby boomers, never ended, and this is a natural progression and result.
I find the issue of abortion very complicated and doesn’t come with a simple answer that you can sum up in a sound bite.
Mjeck, glad to provide more than a sound bite. “I believes” should be supported by reason. How much of this list below sounds like women who are taking responsibility for their sexual activity, and which reasons should be answered by the death of an innocent human baby.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf.
TABLE 2. Percentage of women reporting that specified reasons contributed to their
decision to have an abortion, 2004 and 1987
Reason 2004 1987
(N=1,160) (N=1,900)
Having a baby would dramatically change my life 74 78*
Would interfere with education 38 36
Would interfere with job/employment/career 38 50***
Have other children or dependents 32 22***
Can’t afford a baby now 73 69
Unmarried 42 na
Student or planning to study 34 na
Can’t afford a baby and child care 28 na
Can’t afford the basic needs of life 23 na
Unemployed 22 na
Can’t leave job to take care of a baby 21 na
Would have to find a new place to live 19 na
Not enough support from husband or partner 14 na
Husband or partner is unemployed 12 na
Currently or temporarily on welfare or public assistance 8 na
Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems 48 52*
Not sure about relationship 19 na
Partner and I can’t or don’t want to get married 12 30***
Not in a relationship right now 11 12
Relationship or marriage may break up soon 11 16*
Husband or partner is abusive to me or my children 2 3
Have completed my childbearing 38 28**
Not ready for a(nother) child† 32 36
Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant 25 33*
Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child 22 27*
Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion 14 24***
Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus 13 14
Physical problem with my health 12 8**
Parents want me to have an abortion 6 8
Was a victim of rape 1 1
Became pregnant as a result of incest <0.5 <0.
So, back to my first question: What social policy would you like to put forward to replace this trending attitude?
Do you just expect that people should know better?
First, since I have gone to the trouble finding these stats at least comment on them.
1. Lies, damned lies, statistics
2. Misleading, because this is what’s on the surface, but there are deeper psychological questions that need to be answered, if you want to get to the root of the problem
3. These people do not believe a fetus is a human
4. That if these people had their child, it would be neglected, causing the child to grow up maligned, causing an even larger social problem
5. mostly practical reasons; these are not bad, evil people
If you reject the answers these people have given for the reasons for their abortions, on what basis can you claim that you know them better – “That if these people had their child, it would be neglected”.
I didn’t reject their answers.
Do you believe that giving birth of their baby will change their attitude and lifestyle?
You said “lies” and “misleading”
Before the “easy out” of abortion, men and women managed to care for their offspring. Charitable programs and/or the law took care of the rest. Abortion was pushed initially as a program for Eugenics (the beginning of Plannned Parenthood). Today the overwhelming number of abortions are among the African American population.
I don’t know what deeper meaning can be expected from:
“Percentage of women reporting that specified reasons contributed to their
decision to have an abortion”
“Having a baby would dramatically change my life 74 78”
I suppose a Freudian might blame the woman’s mother for being afraid to face the uncertainties of life.
There has never been a problem of men and women having children throughout history, it is one of the best parts of life. I have been giving you my solution to the baby carnage this whole time – strike down Row v Wade, let the states laws against abortion stand.
I have to sign off for now.
Yes Howard, the deeper meanings may involve the arrested development of entire swaths of people; which won’t be solved by jumping in a time machine and resetting to 1950′s pre-abortion.
Good to talk with you, take care
You asked me what I thought. My first thought was a quote by Mark Twain, “There are lies, damned lies, and then there’s statistics.”
I find it misleading, because I imagine that there are deep psychological, social reasons for people’s answers that cannot be summed up in a statistic.
I didn’t reject their answers. I read them and gave you my opinion. And I gave you my opinion without adding any bleeding heart liberal response about the poor and disenfranchised.
So, if you don’t like the “easy out,” or Planned Parenthood, then back to my first question, in light of your statistics: What is your better social policy?
I think Michelle Obama is as qualified to speak about unconditional love as any of you. Again, unconditional love is viewed differently by different person.
Sorry, but catholics don’t hold ownership of the definition of unconditional love.
Jesus Christ and His Church KNOW the MEANING of unconditional love.
Something this world will never know….
Peace be with you.
Why are you mentioning Red Golliath, Stacy? Some kind of merchandising? Is it a sponsor?
I know, bills should be paid, but if you mentioned it as a merchandising, I must say I don’t feel confortable with that. You’re writing about unconditional love and adverstising a wine at the same time? It seems odd.
I’m confused…
Why would linking to our favorite wine be odd or confusing? Trust me, I didn’t make a penny for mentioning that, nor do I make a penny from any blog advertising. I don’t advertise.