Progressive Revival

"When does life begin?" Interesting question. But it doesn't stop there...

Monday September 8, 2008

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--it was "above my pay grade"--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.

Advertisement
Comments
hootie1fan
September 8, 2008 9:38 AM

THE GOP ticket is going to have to prove that they don't beleive that life begins at conception and ends at birth if they want to secure more of the Catholic vote which would put them directly at odds with others in the Republican base

Raphael
September 8, 2008 11:15 AM

Life doesn't begin at any specific time ... it is transmitted, passed on like a flame to a candle ... but it takes sometimes for consciousness to be activated ... it only comes about when the nervous system connects and that happens all in one go very quickly ... before that there is no consciousness .. there is only unconscious life ... this is why there is a limit in time to when abortion can be performed ... before that time ( the onset of consciousness) abortion are legal, after that they are not.

But making abortions illegal doesn't stop people from having or performing abortions. It pushes them into illegal back street abortion, pushes them into an abusive and dangerous world, with no medical standard, where you have to pay in advance in case mother and child die ... it creates an incredibly abusive framework, taken over by the same people that trafick in people, by the same people that sell you drug, by the same people who abuse children. By making abortions illegal you don't stop abortion, you just create a demand that fuels an abusive illegal market, that destroys everything.

elmo
September 8, 2008 11:15 AM

The debate is likely to continue, and worsen, I suspect--with little light for all the heat.

Nearly 30 U.S. bishops have spoken out on the teachings of the church over when life begins to correct the misinformation being spread by Pelosi and Biden seeking to cover their abortion stance. The answer is clear: at conception. The bishops are the ones with the authority to teach, not politicians. The Catholic Church does not teach by polling. There are no focus groups. You either accept the authority of the Church to teach on matters of faith or you don't. If you don't, you are not Catholic. End of story.

Adam
September 8, 2008 9:06 PM

Raphael, you're incredibly wrongly informed. You are right about life obviously being transmitted--that's a good word for it. I mean, it's obviously human (it's not a dog and it's not an eggplant) and it's obviously alive (because it isn't dead). So you have human life at conception. It's a self evident truth.

However, laws restricting child murder have nothing to do with consciousness. In the first place, no one has any idea when that point in time would be. In the second place, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton removed ALL restrictions. Child murder at any time, for any reason--so long as you cough up the cash. The only restrictions in place now are the ones states have come up with individually.

Further, banning child murder would save MILLIONS of children's lives because the number of children killed (including "Back-Alley" abortions) increased 1600% when it became the law of the land. You should Google Dr. Bernard Nathanson (http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html), who was one of the founders of NARAL. He has since changed his mind (btw, he changed his mind when he saw a sonogram recorded during an abortion, BEFORE he became Catholic) and told the truth about how they invented false numbers to get child murder legalized in the U.S., and how they also "played the Catholic card" to get public opinion on their side. They've been lying from the beginning, he says. And they're still doing it. We're talking about people who would tear a viable human child limb from limb for money. What problem could a soul like that possibly have with lying about it?

Raphael
September 9, 2008 11:31 AM

Adam, in my state (and I quote) : "legalized abortion is available on demand until the tenth week of pregnancy, on condition that women seeking abortions undergo counseling on alternatives thereto and that a one-week waiting period be observed. After the tenth week, two physicians must certify that the woman's health is endangered or the fetus is handicapped, otherwise, abortion is illegal."

I quote from an other text :
"Although Brain stem activity has been detected as early as 54 days after conception, the first measurable signs of EEG activity occur in the 12th week".
"There is an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologist that the establishment of thalamocortical connections ( at about 26th weeks) is a critical event with regards to fetal perception".
So it would seem that prior to 12 weeks there is not yet any consciousness, and although we have life, we do not yet have conscious life ?

Now the logic goes as follow:

Abortions will take place.
By making abortions illegal you don't stop abortion, you just create a demand that fuels an abusive illegal market.
That market is after the money, and encourages abortion. It is a totally abusive environment to push women into, it is unsafe, unregulated, unprofessional and the women come out of it butchered.
So how do you counter that ?
You make abortion legal and free up to a certain gestation time.
You offer advice, counseling, alternatives and support to the person so that she can make an informed decision.
This is the time where you can intervene, create a reflexion, inform of support systems and so on ...
Of course it helps if in your state there is a free healthcare system for all, and if there is substantive unemployment structure system, should it be needed, so that people feel that they are not on their own for the long run of bringing up a child, and that their state is backing them in this endeavor.
This is how it works in my state ... but i am uninformed as to how it works in yours ...
All the best.

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

About Progressive Revival

Diana Butler Bass and Paul Raushenbush both stand firmly within the Mainline Protestant tradition and, along with guest bloggers of all religious backgrounds are dedicated to the revival of religious progressivism and its influence in American politics.

Contributors

Diana Butler Bass
Diana Butler Bass is a commentator and scholar in American religion. She is the author of seven books including A People's History of Christianity: The Other Side of the Story (HarperOne, 2009).
» Posts by Diana Butler Bass
Paul Raushenbush
Moderator of the Progressive Revival blog and the Associate Dean of Religious Life at Princeton University.
» Posts by Paul Raushenbush
More »

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Progressive Revival

Calendar

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.