A bit monstrous
posted at 8:10 am on September 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Joe Biden told Meet the Press yesterday that he was “prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at conception,” a strange statement with a number of implications — most of them ugly and a few monstrous. Kate Phillips at the New York Times puts this in its proper perspective; Biden faces a suddenly popular foe in Sarah Palin, and has to find ways to curtail her advantage. Biden understands that Palin’s own commitment to life makes it difficult to enter into an abortion debate with her, and perhaps wants to eliminate that as a topic:
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic nominee for vice president, departed Sunday from party doctrine on abortion rights, declaring that as a Catholic, he believes life begins at conception.
While Mr. Biden’s views may not be new to Democrats in his circle, his comments, in an interview on “Meet the Press” on NBC, came at a time when his party is confronted with a new face: Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, whose anti-abortion stance and decision to give birth just five months ago to a baby with Down syndrome have revved up the conservative base of her party.
In the interview Sunday, Mr. Biden tried to walk the line between the staunch abortion-rights advocates in his party and his own religious beliefs. While he said he did not often talk about his faith, he said of those who disagree with him: “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.”
Since he’s talking about faith, he should be a little more than “prepared to accept” that view. As a Catholic, it’s a fundamental tenet of his religion, whether he acknowledges it or not. Biden, though, has made this concession before, on the same show in 2007. And that makes his stances on abortion very, very troubling.
Once someone decides that life begins at conception, how one treats that life says volumes about them. Biden, who does not have a great record with NARAL — he has a 36% lifetime rating and generates little enthusiasm from them as Barack Obama’s running mate — nevertheless agrees with Roe and votes to protect abortion rights in many cases. If Biden didn’t believe that life begins at conception, then that would at least make some sense. Abortion wouldn’t be a problem if it didn’t kill a unique human life.
However, if Biden believes it does, then what does that say about the value he places on human life? Or for anything else other than Biden’s own self? It strongly suggests that Biden values his political career much more. In his record, he talks about subordinating this belief to his “political responsibilities”. Well, ethics are a personal belief as well, and no one dies when they get bent or broken. How much does he value his “political responsibilities” over those?
Nancy Pelosi tries deluding herself over the question of life; Biden just doesn’t give a damn. Which is worse?
Update: Michelle notices the same point, and wonders how Biden can live with his support of cold-blooded murder.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Where did all the comments go? Is my computer messing up?
justincase on September 8, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Apparently, Smoky Joe doesn’t feel there’s a pay grade issue with that question.
Wyznowski on September 8, 2008 at 11:57 AM
He has to legislate for a nation that is majority-non-Catholic. The Magisterium also teaches that artificial birth control is “intrinsically evil”. Do all Catholic’s running for elective office have an obligation to believe and campaign on that? Should they use that teaching of the Vatican to write laws.
dedalus on September 8, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Hmm…comments are back. That was weird. I was afraid it was something I said.
pannw on September 8, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Father Z @ WDTPRS has been all over Pelosi and now Biden for their remarks on MTP. He’s got some great posts on the Catholic Church’s position’s history and what the bishops have been saying in response to the two.
Vatican Watcher on September 8, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Coldwarrior at 11:45
Exactly!
I wonder what would happen if a state (or federal government, for that matter) defined “legal personhood” as excluding some group – say Jews (just to make it parallel to what happened in Germany). Would it pass Constitutional muster? What in the Constitution would forbid such a law, if the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly reserves the government’s authority to exclude some biological humans from legal personhood?
I’d really like to hear from some pro-Roe folks about this also. ACtually, I’d really like to hear from Obama on this. I wonder how he would answer the question as to whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to Blacks, who have been specifically excluded from legal personhood.
justincase on September 8, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Nothing. If the legislature proceeds from the premise that human rights are not intrisic to all human beings but only to persons as defined by the prevailing political power, then that is the only answer.
ManlyRash on September 8, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Like a cat trying to cover up on a tile floor, Dems have no ‘cover’ when it comes to Abortion. Rather than engage on the details, they ignore the issue entirely, or suggest that ’science’ has already determined that their opinion is correct.
How can the proponents of “cradle to the grave” government imposition on personal freedoms callously empty cradles?
Doug on September 8, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Pelosi’s position is secure, she will never be replaced as speaker of the house. Even though she’s wrong on so many things.
However, Reid’s top job may get a shake down soon.
Sir Napsalot on September 8, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Manly Rash at 12:19
I wonder how a pro-Roe person would defend that.
If the sanctity of human life is in the eye of the beholder then who are we to say that Al Qaeda can’t abort 3,000 unwanted Americans who are inconvenient to their own plans for their world? Who are we to force onto them our religious views of which human beings are sacred?
I’d really like to hear Obama or any other pro-Roe person answer that.
justincase on September 8, 2008 at 12:36 PM
The implication of Ed’s point is that executing bin Laden or another senior Al Qaeda terrorist would be something a Catholic President would have to coordinate with the current teaching of the Vatican. That’s not an approach most Americans would agree with.
dedalus on September 8, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Dedalus at 1:03PM
I can’t answer for Ed, but who would you listen to if you were the President? How would you decide who should live and who should die? Would you have any hesitancy in making that choice? Why or why not? Is it anybody else’s business if you decide that another person (either innocent or guilty) should die? Why or why not?
justincase on September 8, 2008 at 1:17 PM
The implication…is that executing bin Laden or another senior Al Qaeda terrorist would be something a Catholic President would have to coordinate with the current teaching of the Vatican. That’s not an approach most Americans would agree with.
dedalus on September 8, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Not at all. In the case of a bin Ladin, Roman Catholic Canon Law specifies the bounds of just and unjust war and just and unjust warfare. Further, Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the state has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime, and that the state may take appropriate measures to protect itself and its citizens from grave harm. Thus, a Catholic serving as President would have Canon Law to allow for a clear conscience choice for his civil decision on a matter of civil government and would allow for both war and capital punishment.
In the case of abortion, however, there is no similar Canon Law that could justify a Catholic President making clear conscience choice with regard to civil government allowing abortion. It would then come down to personal Faith and personal ethics.
In Biden’s case, the matter of personal Faith between Biden and God. As for personal ethics, Biden has none, so in that vein, the matter is moot.
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 1:59 PM
You are refuting a point slightly different than the one I was making. I’m asserting that asking a politician to resolve his policy positions with each Vatican teaching is problematic. Who becomes the arbiter of which parts of the Magisterium need to be part of U.S. law?
Pope John Paul II called the death penalty “cruel and unnecessary” and in 1999 persuaded MO Governor Mel Carnahan to commute a specific death sentence. John Ashcroft was critical of Carnahan for responding to the Pope at the expense of the criminal’s victims.
dedalus on September 8, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Dedalus, how do we know if the death penalty is cruel and unnecessary? How do we know if murder is wrong, or child rape, stealing, or anything is wrong? Is it just one person’s opinion against another and whoever’s strongest wins, or is there really something called justice?
Was there anything really wrong with a group of Germans killing a group of Jews because they wanted to alter the gene pool for the betterment of the world? Was that a smart thing for them to do, or was it evil? What do you believe about that and why? What do you use as the basis for your decisions?
We have this postmodern thinking that says cultures are morally neutral; they’re all as good as each other. Can a person really believe that and still think that anything really matters? If Republican culture is just as good as Democratic, then what’s the fuss? If Al Qaeda is just as good as Ghandi, then why try to make sense out of the world at all? If oil spills are just as good as trees and sunshine, then what kind of muck is all this activism and righteous indignation? Is it just some meaningless ritual we do until our molecules fall apart and go back to the dirt? What do you think?
justincase on September 8, 2008 at 4:09 PM
BTW, I agree that public policy and religious doctrines are separate. There’s the Kingdom of Heaven and the kingdoms of earth, with totally different goals, realities, and outcomes. Parallel universes.
But if there’s nothing moral guiding our public polcy, then wouldn’t every decision be just as good as any other? If a myth is something that can’t be measured or proven, then every “right” we talk about in public policy is really just myth, so how is that different than following the Pope in civil government?
justincase on September 8, 2008 at 4:26 PM
justincase on September 8, 2008 at 4:26 PM –
Over forty years of moral equivalency being taught in our public schools has brought us to where we are today.
dedalus on September 8, 2008 at 3:37 PM –
Choices made by a politician are choices made by that same politician. Nothing more. Nothing less.
If you wish to get into this more deeply, I suggest this article. It is lengthy, but is does go into detail as to the role of being Catholic in the political world. The “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” the author of this article, is where Benedict XVI made his bones prior to becoming Pope.
On a personal note, in my lifetime I have come to understand that religion is for those who are afraid of going to hell. Spirituality and Faith are what happens to those who have already walked through hell.
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:56 PM
I was making this point against Kerry in 2004… He made a similar statement. These Democrats are disgusting. They claim to believe life begins at conception… which means, if they’re honest, abortion = murder. So the modern Democrat is basically telling the American people they’re okay with the annual genocide of 1.3 million innocent children in our country alone.
Notice how Biden tweaks his comments here a bit, in an effort to keep support from the stupid and/or dishonest (i.e. any voter registered as a Democrat). He tries to escape his responsibility of protecting these children, as did Kerry, by acting as if there is some separation between his “personal” belief, and whether or not women should be able to “choose”. Biden did this by acting as if it’s a matter of “faith”, so he can later say “I can’t vote based on my faith”. No sir, either it’s life or it’s not. And it is. And if you believe it is, then you’re an accomplice to 10s of millions of innocent dead children.
RightWinged on September 8, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Coldwarrior at 4:56
On a personal note, in my lifetime I have come to understand that religion is for those who are afraid of going to hell. Spirituality and Faith are what happens to those who have already walked through hell.>>>
Man, oh, man, you got that right. You know, I think about the response of the Scribes and Pharisees after they found out Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead. They decided to try to kill Lazarus! They just didn’t get it. How do you hurt somebody who’s already been dead and came back from it?
Once a person’s picked up out of the ash heap everything is different. What’s left to fear? God is good.
This is a little off, but that’s one reason I get so much joy and hope from our military guys (and I hope some of them here read this). They’ve looked hell in the face and came out on the other side knowing that life is worth fighting for. I know some of them would think I’m crazy, but in their willingness to lay their lives on the line to save even someone undeserving I see one of the clearest pictures of Christ. One example of what I mean:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/09/a-soldier-speak.html#comments
Any military folks here, I just want you to know that I love and respect you for what you are (or have been) willing to go through for me and my loved ones. As much as any human alive on this earth, you are my heroes.
I’ll give that site a look. Thanks.
justincase on September 8, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Doesn’t McCain also believe life begins at conception yet is in favor of embryonic stem cell research?
jim m on September 8, 2008 at 6:25 PM
RightWinged on September 8, 2008 at 5:18 PM –
The other disgusting thought is what would a Biden or Kerry do, if by their actions, we accept, in certain communities, sharia law? Would they therefore agree that honor killings are acceptable?
The other aspect, since Biden is a lawyer, if his views toward abortion are what they are, how then can a Court, any Court, prosecute a felon for two murders when that felon kills a pregnant woman?
Scott Peterson was convicted on two counts of murder. Bobby Cutts Jr., was convicted of two counts of murder.
If the fetus isn’t a person…how can these felons be charged let alone convicted of murdering a fetus that has no legal rights?
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 6:30 PM
jim m on September 8, 2008 at 6:25 PM –
It is my understanding that McCain supports federal funding for continued research limited to the several established lines of stem cells from previously harvested embryos. He apparently does not favor expanded federal funding for expanded embryonic stem-cell research.
With the more recent advancements, to include skin cells and adult stem cells, this embryonic stem cell issue may be overtaken by events.
A McCain campaign statement titled “Addressing the Moral Concerns of Advanced Technology” touts “promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that does not involve the use of human embryos.”
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 6:39 PM
Fetuses also have inheritance rights.
Britain should know about the danger of sharia in communities. And that’s actually one of the real dangers of our electoral system. Islamists know that if they can inundate a small area they can influence smaller elections, political appointees, judges, etc, and in that way they can eventually affect national policies. And when we have to be “culturally sensitive” in those areas it sets precedents that spread out to everywhere as well.
If people think that Christians in office would be like the Islamists, I can understand why they would be afraid of it. Some see that Christians and Muslims alike want to get rid of abortions and so they think Christians want to control women just like some of the Islamists do.
But there are atheists and people of all religions who also recognize the value of human life. It’s not just a religious dogma. It is the foundation of civilization. Without it, we are mere animals where the strong kill the weak and whoever’s on top gets to abuse everybody else. Some of the worst oppression has happened at the hands of people like Stalin, who didn’t value any human life. That’s just as real and deadly an extreme as sharia.
he line has to be at life. Private matters become public and/or governmental matters when a life is at stake. It’s not the government’s business if I don’t wear a veil or eat transfats. It IS the government’s business if I stab my child to death. But our society is all screwed up that way.Government pokes its nose into every area of our life but pretends it has no legitimate interest when I would kill another human being. The line of how intrusive government should be is at the point of justice, when life must be protected. And that is the basis for pro-lifers from all different religious/philosophical backgrounds. If a person is afraid of government drawing that line, then governent is not the protector of the vulnerable innocent.
The cool thing about seeing Palin’s family on the stage is the reality that it didn’t have to be Sarah AGAINST Trig. We can love them both. A child is not a threat (or a punishment, as Obama says); a child is a blessing. Sarah didn’t have to be destroyed by a child, and hopefully desperate women can look at the Palin family and see that their child can be a blessing rather than a threat.
justincase on September 8, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Ultimately our Constitutional rights are backed by the strength of the U.S. government. The Constitution offers a means by which unalienable rights can be extended, and they have in the past. How did the founders come to their morality? By various means, but they created a government that, at the time, was the most open, limited, and accountable to the people. Those who want to represent “the people” need to convince the people that they possess moral character–whether it was formed by experiences that were religious, philosophical, military, commercial or from family experience.
Depending on one’s moral viewpoint one could judge the U.S. imperfect–though each school of thought would identify different imperfections. A politician needs to argue from “American values” to persuade voters of change–whether that is for racial equality, women’s rights or rights for the unborn. An argument from Papal authority or on Catholic dogma isn’t persuasive.
As I said above, Biden seems like an insincere guy–or at least his rationalizations are less deeply examined than Mario Cuomo’s–but I think his faith is between him and his priest and we can judge only the results of how his faith translates into a moral framework for governing.
I think Biden may do more than anyone to elect John McCain. I’m glad he wakes up every morning and starts talking.
dedalus on September 8, 2008 at 8:33 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2