Begging the question and other political exercises
What do you get when you cross a microphone and an eraser? The latest inanity from the Democratic ticket. It seems that the Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates are both very fit - they exercise regularly, jumping to conclusions several times a week. Now both Obama and Biden are jumping to "refine" their positions on abortion - probably because they wet their fingers and felt the wind change.
Now here's my question - which Biden didn't answer. If his (Catholic) church is right and life begins at conception, (a position which Obama is willing to approach asymptotically) IS ABORTION THE TAKING OF A HUMAN LIFE? I'm not asking what the consequences should be, only if it takes a life. Biden begs the question by saying he wouldn't impose his morality on someone else - all because of his commitment to pluralism. The lameness of that response - res ipsa loquitur (thanks Bob H.) - "The thing speaks for itself". Mr. Biden has no trouble (I presume) imposing his sexual morality in the case of incest or rape. I believe he favors blanket prohibition of these activities. He has no trouble imposing his morality in the blanket prohibition of murder. Unfortunately Mr. Biden believes (with Ralph Waldo Emerson) that "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Perhaps Nancy Pelosi can explain it to him after she gets a lesson from Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer. My taxonomy of values puts human life above pluralism. I wish Sen. Biden's and Speaker Pelosi's did also.
Now here's my question - which Biden didn't answer. If his (Catholic) church is right and life begins at conception, (a position which Obama is willing to approach asymptotically) IS ABORTION THE TAKING OF A HUMAN LIFE? I'm not asking what the consequences should be, only if it takes a life. Biden begs the question by saying he wouldn't impose his morality on someone else - all because of his commitment to pluralism. The lameness of that response - res ipsa loquitur (thanks Bob H.) - "The thing speaks for itself". Mr. Biden has no trouble (I presume) imposing his sexual morality in the case of incest or rape. I believe he favors blanket prohibition of these activities. He has no trouble imposing his morality in the blanket prohibition of murder. Unfortunately Mr. Biden believes (with Ralph Waldo Emerson) that "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Perhaps Nancy Pelosi can explain it to him after she gets a lesson from Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer. My taxonomy of values puts human life above pluralism. I wish Sen. Biden's and Speaker Pelosi's did also.
Yes, abortion is the taking of a human life.
Now, a question for you along this same topic: WHAT IS AN ABORTION?
Pharmacists for Life and many other pro-life groups (including CLS, shamefully enough) are currently backing new HHS guidelines that would allow pharmacists to not fill prescriptions for drugs they did not agree with the use of, anything from birth control pills to RU486. They justify it by saying that these things cause abortions. They say any egg that is fertilized but denied the opportunity to implant in a uterus by the pill is an aborted baby. I strongly disagree, as the pill prevents pregnancy and thus abortion is not part of the equation.
I see pro-life groups like this gradually expanding the definition of abortion and I start to wonder, "Am I truly pro-life by their standards?" Probably not, and yet they are the voice and face of the pro-life movement. Perhaps Biden's 'commitment to pluralism' is actually a recognition that he can't know the answer in every situation because his opponents are 'refining' their definitions constantly as well.
Reply to this
I usually let comments stand. Like Michelle Malkin says "Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand." This is a very important topic and also part of an ongoing conversation in the culture. Because of that, I feel I MUST speak up, if only to clarify. The culture dictates the topic. As the great reformer, Martin Luther once wrote: “If I profess with the loudest voice [and clearest exposition] every portion of the truth except [precisely] that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefields besides, [sic] is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”
So, here goes.....
RU-486 "works" by denying progesterone to the developing baby, therefore by my definition it is the taking of a human life. RU-486 is legal for use up to seven weeks. At this stage the baby's heart has been beating for a full month and if you could see inside the womb he or she might be seen sucking their recognizable thumb. Though only around a quarter of an inch at 6 weeks, the baby already has recognizable brain activity, fingers and toes, reflexes and nascent lungs.
Baby at six weeks
CLS has its own issues and may have reasons for taking the position they hold. They are correct if they assert that RU-486 causes abortion (as I argued above). The "train has left the station" if they think that Christians (evangelical or otherwise) will win the culture wars by vying for power, legal, political or otherwise. Those seeds (that caused us to "lose" the culture wars) were planted nearly 100 years ago when fundamentalists chose to reject many of the physical/social implications of the Gospel. Since that time we (evangelicals, the spiritual heirs of Fundamentalism, among whom were luminaries such as J. Gresham Machen, one of the Princeton theologians - yes, THAT Princeton). Keith Drury has a very good synopsis of the last half century of the culture wars here. It is well worth the time to read.
Machen led a conservative
revolt against modernist
theology at Princeton and
formed Westminster
Theological Seminary as a
more orthodox alternative
SUMMARY:
(1) I'm not expanding my definition of abortion, which is the taking of a human life.
(2) By this definition RU-486 causes abortion.
(3) My problem with Biden's position on this is that he claims to be Roman Catholic, yet takes a position
contrary to the church's position, which is contradictory.
(4) For the record, I don't know the answer in every situation either (like Biden) but what I know
(like RU-486 causing abortion) "I know real good", as my Texas friends would say.
(5) "The Pill" (birth control pill, as differentiated from RU-486) as I understand it, does NOT cause an abortion.
I think we're in agreement on this one but I wanted to clarify.
Reply to this
Don't get hung up on RU486 - that was not my point as I agree it causes an abortion. The thing that concerned me was a quote from a Pharmacists for Life rep that said something along the lines of "wouldn't it be great if we could stop all birth control?" This comment coupled with the broad spectrum of legitimate forms of birth control that these people are seeking to stop dispensing is scary. I've worked in countries where women do not have access to birth control, and seen the consequences. It's not pretty, and can be literally life-threatening for women with mental illness, Type I diabetes, and any other number of illnesses that can cause serious pregnancy complications. But that is what many pro-lifers profess to ultimately desire: an end to all birth control.
This is why I am starting to question my commitment to a pro-life stance.
Reply to this