Biden: life begins at conception
UPDATE, 11:50a: The New York Times has a story today on Biden’s attempted parse on the abortion issue [HT: moderator Chris]:
… Biden’s views… came at a time when his party is confronted with a new face: Gov. Sarah Palin… whose anti-abortion stance and decision to give birth just 5 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.
IMO, that line is becoming increasingly difficult to traverse.
_______________
For a topic no one cares about according to MSM, pollsters, and liberals, the abortion issue sure is getting a lot of coverage. I love it. Think about who doesn’t want to talk about such things as when life begins: only pro-aborts.
Yesterday on NBC’s Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw asked puffy-eyed Joe Biden (not enough sleep or too much to drink – or both?) how he might instruct self-professed ignorant Barack Obama on when life begins….
Biden, a pro-abortion Catholic, responded:
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.
Biden, like Obama, attempted to make this a religious question.
But it is much more than that. It is a scientific, medical, and constitutional question.
When do science and medicine say human life begins? At conception. This isn’t some vague concept.
What about the Constitution? 35 years ago US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the Roe v. Wade decision:
The appellee … argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment … If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.
35 years ago one could not watch human fertilization with a microscope or view early life with 4D ultrasound. Were personhood to be an issue before the US Supreme Court today, as Blackmun stated, the other side’s argument would “collapse.”
I love that Brokaw quoted NY’s Cardinal Egan, too, basically calling Biden, Pelosi, and Obama unfit for office.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
LOL-I just commented on Biden in the Obama thread. I’m following you around! :D Kidding.
But yes, reducing this to a matter of “personal faith” (which we know it ISN’T) is a diversionary tactic. We who are pro-life are not pro-life strictly on a religious level, as is evidenced by many pro-life persons who ascribe to no faith whatsoever.
The pro-life cause is a cause for all humanity, not just persons of faith.
I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that we must not steal. 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.
I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that owning slaves is wrong. 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.
I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that Jews should not be gassed. 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.
Since WHEN is Biden such a “devout” Catholic ???
If he were, he wouldn’t be even remotely associated with Obama.
Exactly Arlen. These guys just spout off a bunch of nonsense. It’s all about straw men and diverting the issue into something “religious” or “personal.” Chalk ANYTHING up to “I personally believe it” or “I believe it on accounts of my religion” but I can’t impose it on the public, and you have a formula to try and satisfy both sides. I mean, good grief, if you support abortion, then support abortion. These guys are cowards. They aren’t only cowards for supporting the killing of the unborn, but also for not even admitting that they support the killing of the unborn. At least the pro-choicers on Jill’s blog are honest about that.
Jill, no one “cared about” this issue when it seemed the right to abortion was “settled law.” No rational people thought it was possible that we’d go backwards so far so fast. Now, with McCain/Palin, it’s a possibility. (at least it’s on the agenda).
So, I think those who favor legal rights for women will start caring very much about this issue and support Obama/Biden with new vigor. This includes Hillary supporters.
Church has NEVER STRUGGLED. Pelosi may have, but Church never struggled.
He (Biden) accepts the teachings of the Church??? What a joke!!!
That life begins at fertilization is NOT a matter of faith, it is a matter of science. When human RIGHTS begin is NOT a matter of theology, but a legal matter! Ugh.
I’m going to try posting this again:
Jill I contest that “35 years ago one could not watch human fertilization with a microscope”.
I believe that there were photographs produced of human fertilization and early zygote development widely published in the 1960’s by photographer Lennart Nilsson. I think his book, A Child is Born which dates back to 1965 maybe?
Abortionists don’t favor “legal rights” for women. They favor allowing unlimited killing of ALL women and ALL men in the first nine months of our lives and depriving every woman and every man of our entire human lifespans. This is the ultimate anti-human mentality.
The obfuscation is amazing.
Biden now admits that life begins at conception but he says as a public official he can’t impose his views on any one else.
Gee, does he believe murder is wrong? How about stealing? How about everyhitng else the government has laws against and opposes their will over others.
Well, time to let out ALL of the prisoners because the government has no right imposing its views on others and therefore, no one is guilty of anything because its just a metter of opinion. Now there’s change we can believe in.
Look, Biden’s answer may be what pro-aborts want to hear, however, this guy has definitely just disqualified himself from public office as he is grossly incompetent.
Let’s see what happens when we replace human embryos with other groups of people…
“I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that Native Americans and Latinos are human beings. 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.”
Also, the fact that Blackmun calls it a “suggestion of personhood” is ridiculous. All human life was thought to have the property of personhood – isn’t that why the Nazi’s were prosecuted for war crimes because they believed certain peoples (Jews, Catholics, gypsies, homosexuals, disabled) were not persons. Suddenly now, personhood has to be conferred upon human beings. This is an outrageously prideful concept to say the least.
The very nature of being human (as opposed to chimpanzee or goat) should mean that a person exists with full protection of a countries laws.
bmmg39, amazing how that doesn’t seem to work in pro-abortionists minds for other groups of people, only those inside the womb.
Jill, no one “cared about” this issue when it seemed the right to abortion was “settled law.” “No rational people thought it was possible that we’d go backwards so far so fast. Now, with McCain/Palin, it’s a possibility. (at least it’s on the agenda).
So, I think those who favor legal rights for women will start caring very much about this issue and support Obama/Biden with new vigor. This includes Hillary supporters.
Posted by: hal at September 8, 2008 11:24 AM”
——————-
Hal, as always you have things backwards. Ancient civilizations such as the Aztecs regularly sacrificed their children to the gods to appease them.
So, you need to correct your dyslexic view of the historical timeline my friend.
Remember this, abortion is evil and barbaric = backward.
Eliminating abortion = good = forward.
The nation and the world are seeing this as well.
HisMan, no one who supports Bush/McCain/Palin should through around the term “grossly incompetent.”
Since WHEN is Biden such a “devout” Catholic ???
Unfortunately, in a relativistic society, Biden does APPEAR “devout”, or at least informed. Too bad he doesn’t actually practice his Catholic faith, you know, the living out, in all areas of his life (ahem, voting), what he knows to be good and true.
Hal, how is Obama more competent than Palin or McCain?
Hal,
Oh yea. Right. I’m sure HisMan simply forgot what a giant your TOP guy is when it comes to experience.
Hey Obama isnt going to overturn Bush’s tax cuts because he claims it may hurt the economy.
Sounds like we have a Bush triplet in the making! Maybe you should vote for Nader Hal?
All human life was thought to have the property of personhood
Patricia, no – as far as I know no society has ever really attributed personhood before birth.
That life begins at fertilization is NOT a matter of faith, it is a matter of science. When human RIGHTS begin is NOT a matter of theology, but a legal matter! Ugh.
Bethany, I almost agree with all of that. You’re right about the science part, but the rights issue does extend beyond the law, into our own beliefs, including religious ones.
What a cop-out!
Biden appears to be saying that society can only make laws that everyone in society will support. We can’t “force” our beliefs on others. I wonder if Biden is willing to follow his position to its’ logical conclusion. 100% of US citizens have to be in complete agreement on any laws passed. Afterall, we wouldn’t want to “force” people to follow laws that they don’t believe in, that run contrary to their morals.
I am sure that there are laws at this very moment that people don’t agree with. Bet the NAMBLA folks would be happy with that.
Doug: “Bethany, I almost agree with all of that. You’re right about the science part, but the rights issue does extend beyond the law, into our own beliefs, including religious ones.”
It has nothing to do with religion for me, and I am sure many others. It has to do with reason.
Why do we give rights to newborns who have no special advantage over animals or preborns? There is no reason. Newborns are nothing special when it comes to inteligence or contribution to society.
What about the mentally handicapped? Or the elderly? Or those in comas?
Humans have rights not because they individually earn them by “proving” their inteligence. Humans are afforded rights by each other. We have rights because of the human society. Humans are not special individually…what makes us “special” is our capabilities as a society to go above and beyond our circumstances. This ability relies on every member in theory. We give each other rights because we respect the human race. This is what we call “dignity.” Dignity is why we take care of the poor and the helpless. Dignity is why we give the elderly respect and we allow them rights even if they are below the functioning level of an animal. It is why we provide care for the mentally handicapped, and it is why we force parents to properly care for their newborns, even though they are not yet self-aware. It follows because it properly aligns with all of our other principles that dignity requires us to respect the rights of the preborns as well. Even if it turns out that they are not justified in their use of their mother’s body, there should be no question over our respect for those human lives. In fact, we should show a special respect for those human lives because they are so particularly helpless. This is our natural reaction to other helpless humans – infants, homeless, elderly, mentally or phsyically handicapped – why is it any different for the most helpless of them all?
We should also respect those lives because at some point, somebody did for each and every one of us. This is also linked to the idea of human society. We help each other, because who knows when we will need help? It is easier to understand with the handicapped and the elderly, because we are possibly heading in those directions. However, it is simply convenient to not sympathize with preborns because we will never have to worry about being there. What is the difference though for our infants? I suppose that it is because an infant is clearly visible, considering they hold no special advantage over preborns.
But all that aside, Doug, why do you think humans have rights? Please dont say “well the law says so.” Remember that the law follows from principles, not the other way around.
All human life was thought to have the property of personhood
Patricia, no – as far as I know no society has ever really attributed personhood before birth.
Posted by: Doug at September 8, 2008 12:15 PM
________________________________________________
Christian society believe in personhood in the womb and so do the thousands of moms and dads who talk to the belly of the pregnant women.
So do the millions who advice pregnant women to follow special diets and avoid certain activities while pregnant.
Doug, we’ve been over this before and you and I can’t agree on the day of the week, that’s how far apart we are.
All human life was thought to have the property of personhood
Patricia, no – as far as I know no society has ever really attributed personhood before birth.
Posted by: Doug at September 8, 2008 12:15 PM
Throughout Christendom, this was certainly the case as has been reported in the media via the Pelosi scandal. The Catholic societies never condoned abotion nor infanticide. Many western cultures held this view of personhood even if it was not always applied rigourously (ex the Church in Spain expressed misgivings and preached against the treatment of indigenous peoples in South America and the French Catholics in Canada and the US also lived among the First Nations, not necessarily respecting their cultures but certainly viewing them as people with souls to save for God).
Secondly, even if your statement were true, this does not mean that we cannot change our views of what it means to be a person. Unless of course people like you object do to the expediency of your lifestyle etc.
It is only since our neopagan times that this trend has been reversed.
I have nothing more to say to you specifically on this Doug. Sorry.
Hal sez: “Jill, no one ‘cared about’ this issue when it seemed the right to abortion was ‘settled law.’ No rational people thought it was possible that we’d go backwards so far so fast.”
It’s not “settled law” when it’s legislated from the bench, sir. Expecting Americans to roll over and pee when an activist court barks is just delusional. Americans count something as law when it’s actually legislated.
It’ll never be behind us until we go back to actually legislating it. That’s what’s happened with civil rights post-Brown v. Board of Ed., subsequent legislated law has proven that the finding in Brown was right, even though legislated from the bench. In the case of Roe v. Wade, subsequent legislation has almost always challenged Roe.
That’s the big difference between the two major activist decisions of the last century. One was vindicated by subsequent legislation and cultural transformation to the point where a non-White (he’s not African-American at all, though) is a presidential candidate, and the other has been constantly assailed to the point where the minority candidate is going to lose to a ticket with an explicitly pro-life candidate on it, and a top o’ the ticket candidate who’ll appoint non-activist justices.
Kiss Roe g’bye, Hal. And then we can be about the business of moving forward by resolving the issue legislatively.
If we are not persons when we are conceived, why would we become persons when we breathed air? I just don’t understand how the pro-aborts can ever stand for human rights when they deny personhood in the womb. How can they have any interest in pre-natal health, if it isn’t a person there in the womb?
I guess it would be a blow at the ‘heart’ of their argument and they would have to honestly said that persons are persons, but some are more important than others.
The “I won’t force my religious views on the public” excuse is among the most idiotic in existence, for numerous reasons. Among the most obvious, though, is this: When it comes to abortion, there are numerous reasons for being pro-life which have nothing to do with religion. Those who subscribe to such reasons can advocate for pro-life without recourse to religiously-based rationales.
What the religious “non-forcer” lamer ends up implying, with this excuse, though, is that he will prefer to oppose those who have strictly secular reasons for being pro-life.
Thus: “I am religiously pro-life, but I’m going to cover my ears and say lalalala really loud so I can’t hear the secular arguments against abortion — and while doing so in order to placate my pro-choice constituency I will oppose secular pro-lifers even though, if I were to promote their cause instead of impede it, I could be acting consistent with my faith AND not be forcing my faith on the public.”
It reduces to cowardice, disingenuousness, ignorance, or genuine stupidity. Or political cupidity.
How horrifying. Like Kerry before him who also admitted to believing life begins at conception, Biden tries to somehow justify his unjustifiable votes. I don’t care WHY he believes life begins at conception. A leprechaun could have told him it begins at conception. The point is what you DO with your beliefs. Human lives are at stakes. Who gives a darn WHY he believes it? The fact is that he believes an unborn baby is a person, and he refuses to do anything about it.
How are we supposed to respect/elect someone without a backbone?
Everybody has a basic faith commitment. Oliver and Doug do too, and they proceed from such presuppositions. Secular humanism is the reason that so many of us, prolifers too, speak of religion as merely a part of life rather than all of life. We think that we can take it or leave it. Secular humanism denies its own religious character–it’s a response to the God revealed in His Word–and so dictates the terms by which we all live in a “religiously neutral” country. Secular humanism really is the state religion.
To be consistent, Mr. Biden should have said, “I’m not prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. That would be a judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and likely much more devout than I am, I would have to be a politician whose job it is to daily make such judgements. I live in a pluralistic society, and I don’t know what I believe.”
Or maybe, Mr. Biden lives in a pluralistic society, and when he doesn’t personally have Belief A, then he says that he personally does have Belief A, but many other people have Belief B (or C or D). If so, Mr. Biden is a liar. He doesn’t have Belief A.
No rational people thought it was possible that we’d go backwards so far so fast.
VIVA LA IRRATIONAL!
Oliver said, “Humans are not special individually…what makes us ‘special’ is our capabilities as a society to go above and beyond our circumstances.”
The above statement is part of Oliver’s creed. I appreciate Oliver’s strong prolife stance, but I am completely opposed to his religion. My religion says that humans are special individually. God declared each human being’s individual worth and special status after the Flood, which He had sent because of the extreme violence on the earth. In the same declaration, God decreed capital punishment as the just punishment for the deliberate taking of a human life.
Jon,
I actually believe each human is special individually, just that we did not earn it. You’ll find that our shared religion supports that idea.
My point is that we do not earn it. Either it is endowed in us from God (an impossible line of reasoning for non-believers) or it is a product of our societal construct. I presonally believe both, but I will only argue the second because the first is a matter of faith.
My ultimate argument is that the status of a human need not be provable only by the Word of God, but that it can also be proved through other principles we share, such as upholding human dignity.
Oliver 1:52, I’m glad that we share the same religion. I spoke too strongly.
I presonally believe both, but I will only argue the second because the first is a matter of faith.
And the second is a matter of faith. You said that you believe both.
LB @ 1:02,
If we are not persons when we are conceived, why would we become persons when we breathed air? I just don’t understand how the pro-aborts can ever stand for human rights when they deny personhood in the womb.
Fairy dust. HUMAN fairy dust in the air turns babies into humans. The stork sprinkles it around the baby at the hospital. Blue dust makes boys and pink dust makes girls.
Janet,
hehe.
mk,
hehe, back at ‘cha. :)
Some Europeans who argue personhood use the Groningen Protocol for infanticide. (See, for example, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022201.html) If as Nietsche said, we have killed God, then we are responsible for each other, to decide who lives and who dies. Some lives are not worth living.
What I mean to say to further clarify, is that I will only argue the second point because it is based on (mostly) universally accepted principles.
I cant prove preborns have rights based on the Bible, but I can prove it to others who share the same beliefs, specifically that the indigent elderly, and other indigents derserve human rights.
mk,
At lunch, everyone was talking about “that nurse at Christ Hospital” who held the baby after the botched abortion. I told them about Jill’s web site.
Just thinking…. no one should be allowed to say, “I’m opposed to abortion but I wouldn’t tell someone else what to do.” That answer just isn’t good enough anymore!
Janet,
Exactly. It would be one thing if it wasnt talking about the implications of human rights and the deaths of millions of humans.
“I personally hate coconut cake…but I wouldnt force anyone else to not eat it.”
It makes perfect sense when abortion is on that level! Unfortunately, a more proper analogy would sound more like this…
“I personally oppose slavery…but I wouldnt force anyone else to not enslave people.”
Now you sound like a moral wimp. You believe some group of humans to have their rights violated, but its not something you would stand up for.
Oliver 2:14 said, “I cant prove preborns have rights based on the Bible, but I can prove it to others who share the same beliefs…”
Oliver can profitably from the Bible prove preborns have rights because Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden both claim to share Oliver’s beliefs. Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden claim to be Christians. Many Americans claim to be Christians.
But perhaps Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden aren’t really Christians… Or their faith is still small, in which case they will humbly trust their respective churches all the more…
If you still think being pro-life is a religious position –
I just googled “Atheists for Life” and came up with 5,190,000 hits.
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/jones1.html
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/19127
Janet 2:24, atheism is a religion. It’s just not a very good or true one.
“No rational people thought it was possible that we’d go backwards so far so fast.”
Well then apparently, everything after the word “thought” in that sentence is unnecessary. Which creates a paradox most easily resolved by rejecting the attribute “rational” for this cohort.
;-)
Jon,
Ok. One doesn’t have to believe in God to be pro-life. How’s that?
Oliver and Janet I agree —
The heart of modern liberal ideology is seeing all options as equally viable and not having a standard of good. This ideology makes the whole, “I personally object, but can’t advise anyone else”, seem to be a noble stance.
But such a stance is at heart totally illogical as you both have pointed out. You can’t have a moral conviction unless you are willing to advocate it as a good. Why be against slavery, if it’s okay for other people to practice? Why be against killing infants, if you ensure other people can do it?
If all things are considered equal, then we need not have courts, schools or society as a whole. The movement to stop awarding champions, but to give out participation ribbons to everyone – even little kids thought that was lame. It’s such lazy philosophy, based on I’m not sure if I’ll always be right, so I would rather say that it doesn’t matter.
Sometimes I think the lefty babyboomers just decided to never grow up. They still look at the world like they are frustrated 12 year olds who call everything they don’t understand ‘unfair’.
Whew, I think I’m done now.
Janet 2:31, much better! Thanks.
LB –
This was covered in Lewis’ Narnia series. From Voyage of the Dawn Treader:
“And we’re extremely regrettable,” said the Chief Monopod, “that we can’t give you the pleasure of seeing us as we were before we were uglified, for you wouldn’t believe the difference, and that’s the truth, for there’s no denying we’re mortal ugly now, so we won’t deceive you.”
“Eh, that we are, Chief, that we are,” echoed the others, bouncing like so many toy balloons. “You’ve said it, you’ve said it.”
“But I don’t think you are at all,” said Lucy, shouting to make herself heard. “I think you look very nice.”
“Hear her, hear her,” said the Monopods. “True for you, Missie. Very nice we look. You couldn’t find a handsomer lot.” They said this without any surprise and did not seem to notice that they had changed their minds.
“She’s a-saying,” remarked the Chief Monopod, “as how we looked very nice before we were uglified.”
“True for you, Chief, true for you,” chanted the others. “That’s what she says. We heard her ourselves.”
“I did not,” bawled Lucy. “I said you’re very nice now.”
“So she did, so she did,” said the Chief Monopod, “said we were very nice then.”
“Hear ’em both, hear ’em both,” said the Monopods. “There’s a pair for you. Always right. They couldn’t have put it better.”
“But we’re saying just the opposite,” said Lucy, stamping her foot with impatience.
“So you are, to be sure, so you are,” said the Monopods. “Nothing like an opposite. Keep it up, both of you.”
“You’re enough to drive anyone mad,” said Lucy, and gave it up. But the Monopods seemed perfectly contented, and she decided that on the whole the conversation had been a success.
I guess it would be a blow at the ‘heart’ of their argument and they would have to honestly said that persons are persons, but some are more important than others.
Posted by: LB at September 8, 2008 1:02 PM
******************************************
LB, many of them say something pretty close to that.
They say that the unborn are clearly human (what else could they be?), but that really doesn’t matter because the mother’s rights trump the rights of all others involved, whether considered “persons” or not, since the unborn child is within or “part of” the mother’s body.
It’s all about location. Even IF the unborn were declared by law to be “persons,” they’d still scream that if it’s in the mother’s body, she has a right to get rid of it.
Janet 2:31, I could still argue that all non-Christians are pro-death in the broadest, most meaningful sense of the word. But then I would be an even greater pain in the neck, wouldn’t I?
Rasqual,
Oh My Gosh, Jill and Bethany will tell you that I used that very story to illustrate a point a few months ago…it’s a running joke with Bethany and I now…”They’re all monopods”
Too funny…
Jon,
The problem with Biden and Obama and the majority of the US being Christian, is that many Christians do not feel they need to follow every bit of “advice” in the Bible. I had this argument with a Christian 10 years ago. He was personally anti-abortion, but politicaly pro-choice. I tried to explain it to him based on the Bible considering his SN was “Xian” (X is the symbol for Christ.) He cited several parts of the Bible he thought were “out of date” or “irrelevant.” Although he claimed to be a Christian and attended church, he did not uphold every word of the Bible. Because of this, I could not convince him based on the Bible, and I retaliated by using non religious arguments. This is part of the reason I still do not use religious arguments to this day.
“You’re enough to drive anyone mad,” said Lucy, and gave it up. But the Monopods seemed perfectly contented, and she decided that on the whole the conversation had been a success.
I think I’ve said those very words to Doug more than once…lol.
Personally, I’d like to see a Gandalf/Frodo ticket.
Gandalf is pro-gay marriage :(
Gandolf is okay, but I can’t deal with having the hairy-footed in charge, unless he promises to wear shoes. :)
Gandolf the GREY was pro gay marriage, but Gandalf the WHITE has come to his senses.
Now LB, be nice, hims can’t help that his widdle bitty feetes are hairy…
Right now, we’ve got Gollum running. I assume hairy feet would be better.
Actually, that’s a pretty good analogy…can you just see Obama holding his little fetus droning “My precioussssssssss….my preciousssssssss right to chooooooooooses….”
That’s IT! No wonder he can’t see clearly. He’s been possessed by the “ring”!
I need to read the Rings; I’ve just seen the movies. Very profound message about seeking power and it’s affect on the individual soul in those books.
I did hear quite a bit about Tolkien when I was in college from a favorite prof who knew both him and CS Lewis while a student at Oxford. She was a tremendous English professor and a wonderful person as well as Dominican Sister. She taught into her 100th year with clarity, charity and humor.
I just wish I’d paid a bit more attention, but I was a European history/ Political Philoshopy student and took Shakespeare for fun…
“can you just see Obama holding his little fetus droning “My precioussssssssss….my preciousssssssss right to chooooooooooses….”
That’s IT! No wonder he can’t see clearly. He’s been possessed by the “ring”!
Posted by: mk at September 8, 2008 3:14 PM”
——————————–
Yeah, MK..and what did his obsession with the One Ring do to poor Gollum in the end…clutched it to the fiery end.
And the killer is, he could have been St. Gollum.
He wasn’t a bad guy…just a weak one.
But explanations do no good as you’re plunging to your death.
LB,
My absolute favortie books in the world. You could read them over and over and over and still feel like you’re reading them for the first time…amazing.
NO, I think that the court document that made Roe vs Wade law (and it was a law based on a LIE) is the “precious” and “one ring” of the feminazis that want abortion to be around FOREVER.
Mrs. Palin is more of a blue-collar Sam than Mr. Biden. Mr. Biden would have have to be Wormwood.
Speaking of secular arguments for abortion, one of the most articulate advocates for life is Nat Hentoff, who describes himself as a “stiff-necked Jewish atheist.”
Also, this doesn’t have anything to do with the last post, but I am disturbed to find out that Sarah Palin is a hunter. Doesn’t pro-life mean that we should protect ALL life, even those of animals?
Melissa,
No. Not actually. There are variations on how consistent the pro-life movement should be.
For example, I presonally am anti-death penalty, no matter what. I value human life too much to specifically kill someone, especially considering that it doesnt help prevent the death of other people. (Its also cheaper to not put someone on death row believe it or not)
However, some people who are pro-life say it is justified to kill a criminal under certain circumstances, but in no circumstance is it justifiable to kill a preborn.
Again, there are pro-lifers who think hunting is justified under certain circumstances as well. I am actually fine with hunting as long as it is not wasteful. In other words, if you eat what you kill, or make some kind of significant use of it, then it is justified. I dont think hunting and then leaving the carcass is justified, but I dont know how many hunters do that.
There are even people who are pro-life who support abortion in certain cases, such as rape and incest, that other pro-lifers do not support. It all depends on your definition of “justified killing.” Is war justified? I think it is in certain circumstances. Is self defense justified? Again, I believe so. (Although not everyone does. The Talmud preaches against killing in any circumstance.)
In the first book of Moses, in the same declaration of God that affirmed the special value of a human life (as opposed to the lives of animals), God also required capital punishment. If an animal or human being killed a human being, the killer was to be killed. God made the declaration in His blessing to Noah after He recreated the world by the Flood because of human violence.
And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, By man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God Has God made man. As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it. Gen. 9:5-7
Jon,
That is also the “Old” Testament. In the new covenant God put a different spin on things. How can you save someone when you have them put to death for murder? Plenty of murderers have been saved since. Do you view this as a sin? Do you think we still need to make animal sacrifices to atone for sins?
God changed things when he manifested himself in flesh. The rules are the same, but now they have been clarified for us, and embued with the Holy Spirit.
The civil government has the responsibility to keep justice and protect its citizens. Murderers within the country are criminals to be repaid with death, capital punishment. God expects human beings to value His resemblance and honour so much that the one who kills another human being should lose his own life. Justice requires that the punishment fit the crime.
Murderers outside the country, i.e. foreign aggression, must be repelled by force, i.e. war. Again, this responsibility is the government’s. The apostle Paul provides an explanation in his letter to Christians in Rome:
“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong… if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Rom. 13:3-4
Oliver, God’s covenant with Noah is not the same as God’s covenant with Israel. To be sure, they and the whole of the Old Testament and also the New are all administrations of the same one gracious covenant that God has made with human beings since the dawn of history.
God’s declaration to Noah after the Flood (Gen. 9:5-7) happened before Israel ever existed (except as he existed in the loins of Noah). What God said to Noah after the Flood, as a re-creation, is only a reaffirmation of what He had already said at Creation:
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, in Our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” Gen. 1:26
The only difference is the existence of sin at the time of God’s declaration to Noah, and hence the need for capital punishment.
As for saved murderers, saved from God’s everlasting condemnation on them in hell, they will go to heaven. But the state must do its job of justice and kill them.
Jon,
With all due respect, “Thou shalt not kill” is not a suggestion.
According to the Catholic Church, the death penalty is not justified unless there is no other way to protect society from the convicted person.
The death penalty does not in any way protect the public versus a life imprisonment sentence.
I cant condone the killing of people who take lives when it is possible that God could enter their lives. As a Christian my ultimate hope is that the most possible people are saved. I dont want even enemy soldiers to die if there is any other way to avoid the problem. Unfortunately, war is essentially self defense and there is often no other way.
However, the death penalty solves nothing other than retribution, which if you remmeber from Jesus’s teachings, retribution is not in our hands, but in God’s.
I see the death penalty not as retribution but as punishment, consequence for taking a life. I am in no way saying I support the death penalty but I do understand that there are those that will NEVER be rehabilitated. Life imprisonment to me makes more sense. Life in prison with no tv, computer, college courses or cigs.
I am still researching I guess you could say.
I do love reading your stuff, Oliver!! :)
However, the death penalty solves nothing other than retribution, which if you remmeber from Jesus’s teachings, retribution is not in our hands, but in God’s.
Exactly, Oliver, which is why I should again quote the Romans 13 passage, this time using the New American Standard version:
“[I]t is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” Rom. 13:4
Please note that the apostle Paul’s discussion of civil government here comes immediately after the following:
Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord. Rom. 12:19
Keeping justice to protect from evil-doers is the civil government’s reason for existence. God has authorized them to repay death with death. They will give account to Him for their ministry.
And again, when God remade the world, He said,
“Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made man.” Gen. 9:6
The avenger of blood in the civil law of Israel, a theocracy, was the nearest of kin. The apostle Paul makes clear in Romans 13 that the responsibility belongs to the civil government. The apostle Peter also emphasizes the civil government’s duty of justice:
“Submit yourself for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.” 1 Pet. 2:13-14
Justice requires capital punishment for acts of murder. The punishment should fit the crime. God is very concerned about justice; He allowed the Lord Jesus, His incarnate only begotten Son, to be killed to satisfy the demands of justice.
Justice for the unborn!
Janet, the sixth commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” needs to be properly interpreted. For example, I am quite sure that you would agree that we may kill animals. Also, you will remember that as soon as Moses came down from the mountain, he found that Israelites worshipping the golden calf.
Then he said to them, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’ “ Ex. 32:27
God’s explicit commandment was the justification for the killing (and punishing) of human beings. Moses was the instrument. Israel was a theocracy. The apostle Paul makes clear in Romans 13 that the civil government is God’s minister to execute justice. It has the power of the sword. A sword is used to kill.
Jon,
From which version of the Bible are you quoting? Just curious.
“You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘(AA)YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be [b]liable to (AB)the court.’
“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before (AC)the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘[c]You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before [d](AD)the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the [e](AE)fiery hell. ”
Matthew 5 21-22 (New American Bible)
There is no earthly punishment Jesus mentions for any crime, he leaves it to the courts which seems to be the same attitude he had with any government policy, as long as you practice your faith and believe “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” the earthly punishment is irrelevant, it is the punishment which God levys that matters. Since when are we allowed to pass judgement on who lives and who dies, Jesus stopped those from judging and sentencing a woman to death by stoning, why would he believe we have the ability to judge our criminals if he did not allow people of his own time to pass such judgement?
judge our criminals in such a way
sorry, got so excited I was missing a key phrase, it isnt so much the handing down of a punishment, but rather taking away what only God has to give and thus only He should have the ability to take.
Dan,
Thank you.
Janet-
Don’t know what you’re thanking me for, whether it was my response or citation of my own biblical reference, lol, but you’re most certainly welcome.
Dan, All of it! “Thank you” is another way of saying. “I agree”, “good answer”, or any other positive response you want it to be. :0)
Doug: “Bethany, I almost agree with all of that. You’re right about the science part, but the rights issue does extend beyond the law, into our own beliefs, including religious ones.”
It has nothing to do with religion for me, and I am sure many others. It has to do with reason. Why do we give rights to newborns who have no special advantage over animals or preborns? There is no reason. Newborns are nothing special when it comes to inteligence or contribution to society. What about the mentally handicapped? Or the elderly? Or those in comas?
Oliver, that was a heck of a reply. Like Bethany, I agree with most of what you say here.
…..
Humans have rights not because they individually earn them by “proving” their inteligence. Humans are afforded rights by each other. We have rights because of the human society. Humans are not special individually…what makes us “special” is our capabilities as a society to go above and beyond our circumstances. This ability relies on every member in theory. We give each other rights because we respect the human race. This is what we call “dignity.” Dignity is why we take care of the poor and the helpless. Dignity is why we give the elderly respect and we allow them rights even if they are below the functioning level of an animal. It is why we provide care for the mentally handicapped, and it is why we force parents to properly care for their newborns, even though they are not yet self-aware. It follows because it properly aligns with all of our other principles that dignity requires us to respect the rights of the preborns as well. Even if it turns out that they are not justified in their use of their mother’s body, there should be no question over our respect for those human lives. In fact, we should show a special respect for those human lives because they are so particularly helpless. This is our natural reaction to other helpless humans – infants, homeless, elderly, mentally or phsyically handicapped – why is it any different for the most helpless of them all?
You’re correct – we attribute rights to “each other” as a society. We have desires and we want to be treated in certain ways, and we extend that to those others that we see as part of “us.” We don’t see the unborn as part of “us” in that way – they are inside the body of a person, while all the other examples you gave don’t feature that. And I know you wish it didn’t make any difference. All your examples are also not in conflict with other’s rights, and in the case of the unborn, the woman’s rights certain are there, and conflicting with the way you want things to be.
If we go with the concept of “dignity” then the pregnant woman has it, and should be afforded the right to make her own choice.
…..
We should also respect those lives because at some point, somebody did for each and every one of us. This is also linked to the idea of human society. We help each other, because who knows when we will need help? It is easier to understand with the handicapped and the elderly, because we are possibly heading in those directions. However, it is simply convenient to not sympathize with preborns because we will never have to worry about being there. What is the difference though for our infants? I suppose that it is because an infant is clearly visible, considering they hold no special advantage over preborns.
Yes – visible and not inside the body of a person, and already a citizen with rights granted, etc. I agree with you that it’s not a case of “proving intelligence” or anything, and it’s arbitrary and it does not have to be the way it is. We say, in effect, that the born infant is part of “us” in society, rather than being inside the body of a person. With the unborn there is the question of the woman’s rights. With the born that conflict isn’t there.
…..
But all that aside, Doug, why do you think humans have rights? Please dont say “well the law says so.” Remember that the law follows from principles, not the other way around.
Because we have desires, we have our “shoulds” and “should nots” just as you related some of yours, above. We are self-conscious as individuals and as a race, and we want things to go a certain way, and we give legal status pursuant to that. We’re not alone in having the “shoulds” either – dolphins, elephants, the higher primates have them too, and they have their own societies after their fashion. We envision society as a mechanism for helping to ensure that we’re treated as we wish to be.
Part of the United Nations platform is: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
Birth itself is a big deal because then there is “freedom” from being inside the body of a person. Obviously, newborns aren’t “endowed with reason” but there is no longer the conflict with the interests and rights of the woman, so, while somewhat arbitrary and not to the liking of all, it’s no surprise that the line for personhood and the attribution of rights is there.
Doug, we’ve been over this before and you and I can’t agree on the day of the week, that’s how far apart we are.
Patricia, there are our differences of opinion, and then there are historical facts which aren’t dependent on what you and I think.
….
All human life was thought to have the property of personhood.,
Patricia, no – as far as I know no society has ever really attributed personhood before birth.
Throughout Christendom, this was certainly the case as has been reported in the media via the Pelosi scandal. The Catholic societies never condoned abotion nor infanticide. Many western cultures held this view of personhood even if it was not always applied rigourously (ex the Church in Spain expressed misgivings and preached against the treatment of indigenous peoples in South America and the French Catholics in Canada and the US also lived among the First Nations, not necessarily respecting their cultures but certainly viewing them as people with souls to save for God).
Secondly, even if your statement were true, this does not mean that we cannot change our views of what it means to be a person. Unless of course people like you object do to the expediency of your lifestyle etc.
It is only since our neopagan times that this trend has been reversed.
Abortion being illegal is not the same thing as deeming personhood to be present for the unborn. I see people act like it is, all the time, but it’s not that way – abortion was illegal in the US for quite a few years, and personhood wasn’t there for the unborn – they still could be aborted if two doctors signed off on it. The action of abortion was generally illegal, but that in no way meant the unborn had rights, personhood, etc.
People like me don’t have their lifestyle depend on legal abortion, and I’ve never dealt with it, never considered it for anybody in my life. We do support the pregnant woman over those who would take away their freedom in the matter, however.
You are right that it’s not impossible that we would change our views on personhood. I’ve never seen any evidence that any society said the unborn were persons, though. There have been some societies that drew the line after birth – some time elapsed between birth and personhood, but for the vast part birth was the deal.
LB: If we are not persons when we are conceived, why would we become persons when we breathed air?
Because society deems personhood to be present at birth..
…..
How can they have any interest in pre-natal health, if it isn’t a person there in the womb?
If a person or couple wants a baby, do you think they are not going to want it to have good health? Has nothing to do with the personhood debate.
LB: If all things are considered equal, then we need not have courts, schools or society as a whole.
Nobody told you that all things are considered equal, though.
You more want the unborn life to continue, I more want the woman to keep the freedom she now has.
Doug,
Abortion being illegal is not the same thing as deeming personhood to be present for the unborn. I see people act like it is, all the time, but it’s not that way – abortion was illegal in the US for quite a few years, and personhood wasn’t there for the unborn – they still could be aborted if two doctors signed off on it. The action of abortion was generally illegal, but that in no way meant the unborn had rights, personhood, etc.
Two doctors performing an illegal abortion is not proof of anything except the doctors had no respect for life.
Anon’ above was me.
Janet, I used both the New American Standard translation and the New International version in my previous comments under this post.
Dan said that “it isnt so much the handing down of a punishment, but rather taking away what only God has to give and thus only He should have the ability to take.
And I agree with Dan. The civil government represents God. It is God’s minister. The apostle Paul is very clear in his letter to the Romans. And you must realize that at the time that he wrote, Emperor Nero was in power. Emperor Nero was anything but a godly man. You will remember that he blamed the Christians after he himself burned Rome. He also persecuted the Christians. Yet Paul refers to him as a minister of God.
Dan said that “the earthly punishment is irrelevant, it is the punishment which God levys that matters. Since when are we allowed to pass judgement on who lives and who dies…
The earthly punishment is not irrelevant; it is often part of the punishment which God levies. So again, in capital punishment, we do not pass judgement on who lives and who dies. God does. See Gen. 9:6. The civil government is His minister.
Dan quoted Matt. 5:21-22. Here it is again (New American Standard version):
You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
We all commit murder, and we all (or at least the men) commit adultery. We are all guilty before God. As Jesus said, it is not those who are healthy who need the doctor, but those who are sick. The sinners who realized their sin were nearer to the kingdom of God than the Pharisees and chief priests and teachers of the law.
The purpose of the civil government is to act as a restraint on evil. A human being’s shortened lifespan (Gen. 6:3) is also a restraint on evil. Before the Flood, the earth was filled with violence.
The civil government is an imperfect tool, but any government is better than no government. The civil government is an imperfect tool, and God has given it the authority to judge actions, not words or thoughts. God will Himself judge those who have committed murder in their words and thoughts; the civil government should content itself with deeds. The apostle Paul in Romans 13 refers to those who do evil.
Doug doesn’t have a reason,he has a belief, that human beings do not have inherent rights. The most basic human right, is the right to life.
Killing innocent human life is a evil action. It is the essence of the definition of murder.All humans know,before language and symbolic stone scratchings were made(for abortion according to Doug), that seeing a innocent human life ended by the will of another human, invoked the emotion of sorrow and tears. Before one writes, one crys, and the natural fact that one crys, gives a person the moral direction of right and wrong. That Doug destroys the natural conscience of human beings , based on sorrow,tears and regret, and the opposite side of the consceince, known as happiness, is why Doug attributes abortion as the only known inherent natural right of human beings, while denying a inherent human right to life of innocent human beings. And to stay with the word of the day, Doug is always putting lipstick on his wants and needs for evil acts to be performed by the female human being.
But, let us buy the belief of Doug, that all human society and culture has always murdered it’s own for “some reason.”
If that is true, then no society,civilization, culture, government, shall continue to exist when the citizens,subjects,slaves, peasants, realize that their laws,customs, beliefs, are based on the inherent human right that denies innocent human life to live.
They are based on the sorrow and tears of murdering their own innocent human beings.
Which explains why of the five great civilzations which have been recorded by historians, none have and will rise again.
Doug hastens the sorrow and lies of Western civilization’s march to the dust bin of failed civilizations.
I like you Doug, you remind me of some modern version of a wise, intelligent, logical Aztec citizen, cheering when the hearts of human beings are being ripped out and shown to you, and the cheering crowd of fellow citizens. Just make it a fetus, that is being sacrificed for the civilization. And they wonder why they find abandoned cities of lost civilizations. Then Doug, begins his belief that those “stone scratchings”, of that lost civilization, always refers to abortion.
Soo much for legal, law, and the inherent right to murder innocent human beings. Which obviously is the only absolute moral constant in all recorded history, according to the propagandizing Doug.
Tell me Doug, if the idea of abortion is inherent in human beings, how, and who, thought it was a evil act of humans then? Couldn’t be Catholics, the earliest written record of Christians, since that great theologian, politician Joe Biden, and Pelosi know the real truth of abortion history of Catholicism. Your a sad case of propaganda becoming your facts of reality.
yllas @ 8:19,
You’ve got some great stuff there. If you take the name “Doug” out, IMHO, it would be quotable in a general sense, and more effective, if you know what I mean…. God bless you.
“Women voters flock to McCain”
I wrote the other day that liberals, pollsters, and MSM repeatedly have tried to maintain that abortion ranks low on the list of American priorities when choosing candidates for political office. This has always been about minimizing the pro-life effor…
Tell me Doug, if the idea of abortion is inherent in human beings, how, and who, thought it was a evil act of humans then? Couldn’t be Catholics, the earliest written record of Christians, since that great theologian, politician Joe Biden, and Pelosi know the real truth of abortion history of Catholicism. Your a sad case of propaganda becoming your facts of reality.
Yllas, once again you’re pretending what other people say.
Rights are a societal construct, but within all your weird ranting it’s hard to see if you have any meaningful points.
So no – no inherent rights, but that you don’t like a thing does not make it “evil,” for other people.
“Abortion being illegal is not the same thing as deeming personhood to be present for the unborn. I see people act like it is, all the time, but it’s not that way – abortion was illegal in the US for quite a few years, and personhood wasn’t there for the unborn – they still could be aborted if two doctors signed off on it. The action of abortion was generally illegal, but that in no way meant the unborn had rights, personhood, etc.”
Janet: Two doctors performing an illegal abortion is not proof of anything except the doctors had no respect for life.
It wasn’t illegal in the first place.
Doug,
It wasn’t illegal in the first place.
You’ve got me so confused….
Who’s on first??????
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8342445135331678445
Doug, correction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfmvkO5x6Ng
Janet, Abbot & Costello were doing that way back when my parents were born – over 70 years ago – amazing.
You said Two doctors performing an illegal abortion
It was not a case of that abortion being illegal.
The New York Times said, “Mr. Biden tried to walk the line between the staunch abortion-rights advocates in his party and his own religious beliefs.”
Allow me to rectify the inconsistency and bias: Mr. Biden failed to bridge the chasm between his own religious beliefs and the millennia-old doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.
The New York Times said, “Mr. Biden tried to walk the line between the staunch abortion-rights advocates in his party and his own religious beliefs.”
Allow me to rectify the inconsistency and bias: Mr. Biden failed to bridge the chasm between his own religious beliefs and the millennia-old doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.