For all the wilful disparaging of the MSM by the GOP and its allies on the Christian right, there is a good argument to be made that the “media” (whatever that is, today) is reading straight out of the McCain playbook. The latest evidence was Joe Biden’s appearance on “Meet the Press” yesterday. Once again reprising Rick Warren’s script from last month’s Saddleback Forum, Tom Brokaw asked Biden (as he asked Nancy Pelosi two weeks earlier) when she thinks life begins. (Warren actually phrased it, “What point is a baby entitled to human rights?”)
Obama has acknowledged that his answer was too “flip,” though hardly moreso than the bumper sticker slogan McCain later gave as an answer. Here are further remarks on the topic, via Mark Silk’s “Spiritual Politics,” that Obama gave to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos:
“What I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into … It’s a pretty tough question. And so, all I meant to communicate was that I don’t presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.”
In the ABC interview, Obama goes on to give the answer he wishes he’d given: “What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, that it’s one that families struggle with all the time. And that in wrestling with those issues, I don’t think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions.
“I think the better answer — and this was reflected in the Democratic platform — is to figure out, how do we make sure the young mothers, or women who have a pregnancy that’s unexpected or difficult, have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices, including adoption and keeping the child.
Not that this would satisy those who it wouldn’t satisfy. In responding to Brokaw yesterday (transcript here), Biden was better prepared. He said:
BROKAW: If Senator Obama comes to you and says, “When does life begin? Help me out here, Joe,” as a Roman Catholic, what would you say to him?
SEN. BIDEN: I’d say, “Look, I know when it begins for me.” It’s a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I’m prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths–Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others–who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They’re intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life–I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society. And I know you get the push back, “Well, what about fascism?” Everybody, you know, you going to say fascism’s all right? Fascism isn’t a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea.
MR. BROKAW: But if you, you believe that life begins at conception, and you’ve also voted for abortion rights…
SEN. BIDEN: No, what a voted against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion. I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it’s a moment of conception. There is a debate in our church, as Cardinal Egan would acknowledge, that’s existed. Back in “Summa Theologia,” when Thomas Aquinas wrote “Summa Theologia,” he said there was no–it didn’t occur until quickening, 40 days after conception. How am I going out and tell you, if you or anyone else that you must insist upon my view that is based on a matter of faith? And that’s the reason I haven’t. But then again, I also don’t support a lot of other things. I don’t support public, public funding. I don’t, because that flips the burden. That’s then telling me I have to accept a different view. This is a matter between a person’s God, however they believe in God, their doctor and themselves in what is always a–and what we’re going to be spending our time doing is making sure that we reduce considerably the amount of abortions that take place by providing the care, the assistance and the encouragement for people to be able to carry to term and to raise their children.
That’s not sufficient or correct for many Catholic leaders. Rocco Palmo notes that Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, WI, saw the interview then went to celebrate Mass, tossed aside his prepared homily, and proceeded to critique Biden with “money quotes all over the place.” The debate is likely to continue, and worsen, I suspect–with little light for all the heat.
Which raises some other questions: When will we see Sarah Palin interviewed on “Meet the Press”? ABC’s Charles Gibson will be sitting down with her later this week in Alaska for her first interview as the nominee in the two weeks since she was picked. Not exactly “Meet the Press,” but it’s a start. Hopefully. Brokaw and everyone else is insisting on talking to her, but McCain’s campaign seems to be controlling all access very tightly.
It might be a good idea, it seems to me, if we could move beyond the “when life begins” question to asking McCain, for example, how that squares with his support for stem cell research. Or asking all the candidates, how their answer to the question plays out in terms of public policy, which is really what is at stake. It seems to be a dereliction of journalistic duty to stick only with a script written by Rick Warren and not to take the issue any further. Moreover, there seems to be a double-standard at work, as Catholics are held to a certain consistency while evangelicals or non-denominational Christians are allowed much greater leeway. Is that a function of religion? Or politics?
For example, Sarah Palin is universally hailed as “pro-life.” Yet during her 2006 gubernatorial capaign she said she wasn’t interested in talking about abortion and wouldn’t do much about it if elected:
“She would not seek out this issue. She feels like there are several other issues that are paramount to the future of the state,” said Curtis Smith, spokesman for the Palin campaign…Smith said the important thing about Palin’s abortion views is that she wouldn’t be proposing new anti-abortion legislation, and that while her views on the subject are firm, she’s not running for office to advocate for them. He accused the Knowles campaign of trying to politicize the issue. “Tony Knowles [her opponent, who she defeated] is working to divide Alaskans by making abortion an issue,” Smith said.
Similarly, she has been touted as backing abstinence-only sex education–because of this exchange in an Eagle Forum questionnaire (the link to the full questionnaire has apparently been removed):
EAGLE: “Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?”
PALIN: “Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.”
A Saturday story in the LATimes, however, noted that a few weeks later Palin was calling herself “pro-contraception” education for teens–at odds not only with her earlier statement, but also with John McCain’s views:
…in August of that year [2006], Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if “explicit” programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms “relatively benign.”
“Explicit means explicit,” she said. “No, I’m pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don’t have a problem with that. That doesn’t scare me, so it’s something I would support also.”
Be good to explore these discrepancies as avidly as Catholics are being held to account for their views.
Another point: When will we see McCain and/or Palin go before a crowd–say another Compassion Forum–that would like his views on the full range of social justice issues of concern to Christians? Obama went into the lion’s den when he went to Saddleback. Be interesting if McCain could do likewise.
posted September 8, 2008 at 11:18 am
Moreover, there seems to be a double-standard at work, as Catholics are held to a certain consistency while evangelicals or non-denominational Christians are allowed much greater leeway. Is that a function of religion? Or politics?
It’s a function of religion, or rather, the politico-social structure of religion. Catholicism’s politico-social structure — at least in early 21st-century America — makes it difficult for Catholic politicians to diverge from certain Catholic teachings. If such divergence does occur, then excommunication may enter the picture. As a Catholic, there’s only one Church that one may attend; there’s no where else to go.
Evangelicals, however, are free to join church A or church B, depending upon the church’s stance on various politico-social issues. Conservative politicians would join churches that support their political conservatism; and likewise with progressive politicians. The threat of excommunication simply means that the politician goes to another church; and the politician enters a community that considers him or her to be as fully Christian-in-good-standing as any other member.
posted September 8, 2008 at 2:00 pm
In the interview quoted by Mr. Gibson, we again hear Senator Obama referring to his purported interest in “reducing abortions.” Obama’s talk about “abortion reduction” is a pretty wrapper, but it doesn’t match the “gift” inside the package, which is a public policy agenda that would, if implemented, substantially increase the number of abortions.
Here’s just one example: One policy that both sides agree actually has substantially reduced the number of abortions performed in the United States was the cutoff of Medicaid funding for abortion on demand. There are various empirical studies that demonstrate that many children have been born, who would otherwise have been aborted, because Medicaid funding of abortion has been denied by the federal Hyde Amendment, and by the comparable policies in effect in the majority of states. By the most conservative estimate, the federal Hyde Amendment alone has saved over one million lives since it was first enacted in 1976. Both sides agree that this has occurred — indeed, the pro-abortion side cites these studies in urging Congress and state legislatures to repeal these pro-life policies, while pro-life groups see this as a success story.
Well, here is a proven “abortion reduction” policy, so is Obama for it? No, because all that “abortion-reduction” talk is just pixie dust to distract the gullible. Pro-abortion think tanks cooked that line up using focus groups, as a way to give the abortion lobby all the policies it wanted, and to give those religious folks soothing words.
Obama advocates repeal of the Hyde Amendment (and as a state senator, he voted against restricting state funding of elective abortions). Moreover, in 2007 Obama gave a speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in which he promised abortion would be covered in his national health care plan, which means that everybody would be required to pay for elective abortion through taxes, mandatory premiums, or both. And, Obama is a cosponsor of the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” (S. 1173), which would invalidate virtually all state and federal limits on abortion, and which also provides that “A government may not . . . discriminate against” abortion “in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.” In fact, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do.”
Obama’s position on tax-funded abortion is consistent with the plank in the Democratic Platform that reads: “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports . . . a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay . . .”
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Legfederal@aol.com
White Paper on Obama and Born-Alive Infants:
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePaperAugust282008.html
Documentation on the “Freedom of Choice Act”:
http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/index.html
posted September 8, 2008 at 2:31 pm
As a pro- life persons in talking/walking/raising and writing, we agree with San Francisco Archbishop Niederauer’s response to Speaker Pelosi on her statements about when live begins. However we find the admonishment less convincing because this response like others by bishops across the country seem to be only directed at Democrats. Yes, we heard loud and clear the ‘communion wars’ approach addressed to Catholic Pro choice Democrats e.g Kerry, Pelosi, Biden, Gov Sebelius [Kansas]. We have not heard these ‘admonishments’ directed toward Republican pro-choice Catholics e.g. Schwarzenneger, Pataki [NY], Gov Ridge [ Pa]. Thrice married, pro-choice Guiliani received communion at the last Papal Mass!
Five Catholic Republican Supreme Court Justices [a majority] will not vote every year to even hear a case limiting abortion no less overturn Roe v Wade. Political scientists know that the Justices hold the key to voting against abortion; not Pelosi, only one [strong]voice of 435 votes in the House.
Can anyone cite a hierarchal admonishment against the Catholic Justices?
As parents/grandparents we are well aware that evenhandedness is a necessity in teaching. Partisan-ship in a family is a breaker
posted September 8, 2008 at 9:54 pm
The ignorance on display here is astounding.
Anyone who has taken a high school biology course on sexual reproduction knows perfectly well that a new member of a species is formed when the gametes fuse. End of story.
Anyone who has taken philosophy 101 in college is familiar with the slippery slope and the fallacy of the beard and knows that defining a human as a human at some point outside of the biological definition is in seriously dangerous waters both ethically, philosophically and morally.
And anyone who doesn’t know that nearly all stem cell research does not use embryonic stem cells is just plain ignorant.
And just a reminder to any Christians who are pro-abort. It’s isn’t called the immaculate birth.
posted September 9, 2008 at 4:54 am
I’m wondering if anyone thinks about Palin and her airel killing of the endangered wolves, some of those wolves are mother`s & or getting ready to give birth. I feel she is killing baby wolves also which doesn’t go along with her anti abortion stance. She`s a very brutal person paying $150. to anyone who brings her the left front foot of any wolf they killed. Plus their not just killing around peoples homes/farms but lets these killers go into the high country where these wonderful animals live. I’ve yet to see any mention of this evil action of hers as being chosen for McCains sidekick.What if that
ld fart: dies_then she’ll be President,what a nightmare that would be. Plus if Mccain wins it’s just another 4 years of Bush Horror tactic`s and debt it’ll just get worse with McCain,do you want to be paying $10.00 for a gallon of gasoline? that’s where it’s heading. Killing is killing in any form,human or animal.
posted September 9, 2008 at 5:37 am
To: Posted by: frgough | September 8, 2008 9:54 PM
Yes, I agree, the ignorance is astonishing
As you say, everyone knows life begins when gametes fuse
life for ticks
life for leeches
life for intestinal parasites
life for slugs and snails
The issue is not when life begin, when life begins is the deception the anti-abortion caucus uses to confuse the real issue, which is that anti-abortion is nothing more than a political football that people with personal agendas are using to forward their own selfish interests.
Those who are pontificicating the immorality of it, the ones who are shouting the loudest really dont care about the abortion issue. To them, it is nothing more than a convenient vehicle to forward their own selfish personal agendas. To some it is a cash cow that lets them drive BMW’s. To others it is a fast track to a political office. To some it is is a way to experience a feeling of power and importance for a moment in an otherwise empty and meaningless life. To some, it is a way to force their personal beliefs on the masses in violation of everything this country was founded to represent.
If the issue stopped being useful, or required them to make a significant personal sacrifice, then they would drop it without a second thought.
Ever ask yourself why it is such a big issue to the clergy in election years, then almost disappears between? Simple, it doesnt forward THEIR agenda in between elections.
Ever ask why the clergy target democrats and women, but not republican men? Same thing, it doesnt forward THEIR agenda.
Ever wonder why in 28 years, republican administrations have not managed to do anything about it, even though they make promises in every election? Simple, it doesnt forward THEIR agenda to do something about it.
Yes, I agree, the ignorance is astonishing. The ignorance of those who sincerely support this issue. Their blind unwillingness to see that their sincerity and passion for life is used for a very dark purpose. But, as PT Barnum said, there is one born every minute.
posted September 9, 2008 at 7:58 am
To: Frgugh:
You are right, fused gametes creat a zygote; but, unless they become attached to the interutern wall they do not grow but are flushed out. Something like a ‘built in abortion system’.
Sincerely, J R Dittbrenner
posted September 9, 2008 at 8:32 am
This is why I left the Roman Catholic Church. They cant even follow their own rules. You are not supposed to force someone to agree with you that is clearly a violation of cannon law. I feel it is suffient for a catholic leader to say that you cannot make the choice for someone else.
I feel any attempt to excommunicate Biden for this shows their hypocracy.
posted September 9, 2008 at 10:30 am
DGF,
On the contrary, when human life begins is the actual essence of the entire moral debate.
Of course pro-life is more vocal during election years considering that abortion is a matter of changing laws and changing laws requires like-minded legislatures. You know, that whole representative democracy thing.
And Republicans have actually made real efforts to block abortion and with some success. They have cut medicare funding for abortion. They have tried repeatedly to outlaw partial birth abortion. A number of Republican dominated states (Wyoming is the latest, I believe) have put laws on the books to restrict abortion as much as possible, some even doing so in direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. Republicans in Illinois, Barak’s home state tried to pass a law that any baby surviving an abortion should be given immediate medical care.
Conservative Republicans have done much more than just treat it as an electioneering issue. Why haven’t they had more success? Because it’s a hard fight against the pro-abortion crowd, who, frankly, are much better at propaganda.
posted September 9, 2008 at 10:36 am
Seantor Biden answer, as do most Democratic Catholic politicians, begs the question. The Church clearly states that a Catholic politician cannot vote for any legislation favoring abortion. Biden’s, and others votes, against “criminalizing” abortion, ultimatley has the effect of favoring it.
Moreover, when it comes to right to life issues, when will Obama or McCain openly discuss the death penalty. Many of the smae issues are involved here as in the arguments for or against abortion. And Catholic politicians ahve the same obligation to vote against, or abstain from voting for, any legislation which promotes or allows the death penalty.
posted September 9, 2008 at 10:38 am
JR Dittbrenner,
True, but irrelevant. The moral difference between a spontaneous abortion brought about by normal physiological processes and the willful destruction of a developing human in the womb is so obvious to any thinking human being, whether adult or child, that to even attempt to bring it up can only lead to the conclusion that deliberate dishonesty is at work.
posted September 9, 2008 at 3:42 pm
frgough
— As PT Barnum said ….
price of liberty
—- do you happen to know which one(s) that is
posted September 9, 2008 at 3:54 pm
The question should also be asked when does life end? If you believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth, then it’s easy to call yourself pro-life when you are merely anti-choice when it comes to abortion (at least for thoase who can’t travel to private clinincs in Europe) while at the same time ardently supporting the death penalty.
If you believe that all life is sacred, how can you pledge your vote to one single political party?
posted September 10, 2008 at 11:53 am
Frgough:
I did not say anything about the washing out of an unattached zygote as irrellevant or relevant, it is just a fact.
When the zgote becomes attached and developing and something goes wrong with the developing process and and the life is lost, that is a spontaneous abortion. We have moved from the gamate stage to the blastula stage-embryonic-and beyond. When the embryo becomes sensate, is a whole other question. Please do not define reality as dishonesty.
Sincerely, J R Dittbrenner
posted September 12, 2008 at 3:18 am
Is abortion really a social justice issue? Does economic inequality really predict high abortion rates? Will an erection-to-resurrection welfare state really bring abortions down? The answer to all three questions is a resounding “No”.
Every study on comparative abortion rates between countries I’ve reviewed concludes that the most determinative factors for a nation’s abortion rate are social attitudes concerning sexuality, family and the sanctity of human life. Here’s a hair-raising fact: In some communist, secularist Eastern Europe countries, abortion rates exceeded birth rates. In Russia this is still true. Note that economic inequality cannot account for this because nearly everyone was equally poor. In view of the foregoing, it doesn’t seem reasonable to presume that the divine duo of Robin Hood and Mother Theresa would be more effective at reducing abortions in America than would another Great Awakening.
I always get a chuckle when I see left-leaning Christians falling for the idea that the welfare state is a cure-all remedy for every social ill. It seems such Christians just don’t understand the lesson Genesis 3 teaches about human nature: Death and scarcity limit man’s discretion to define good and evil for himself.
Is abortion evil? A good starting point for addressing this question is to note that abortion kills, and to further note that good saves life while evil destroys it. Consequently, I’ve never encountered any sophistry, no matter how elegantly appointed or delivered, that could sweep me past that point. So I wonder why it’s any different for Messrs. Obama, Biden, and Kerry and Ms. Pelosi.
posted September 14, 2008 at 12:12 pm
God creates new life at conception.
As someone who once had the hazy idea that somewhere around the fifth month or so God zapped a spirit into physical form, I’m astonished at my own past ignorance.
I will still vote for Obama and Biden. The alternative is unthinkable.