Newsweek’s Jon Meacham, who co-hosted the weirdly titled “Compassion Forum” with CNN’s Campbell Brown, wasted little time before asking both candidates whether they believe life begins at conception. He should be applauded for asking the question even though the candidates danced around like long tailed cats in a room full of rocking chairs.
The candidates know that this is one question they cannot answer so they parry.
Here’s Hillary’s response:
“I believe that the potential for life begins at conception…But for me, it is also not only about a potential life…. And, therefore, I have concluded, after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be, in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation, that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision…. I think abortion should remain legal.”
Ok? Where’s the answer? What does “potential for life begins at conception” even mean?
You know, sometimes I wonder if candidates who support abortion just haven’t really thought it all through. But an answer like this really shows that not only have they thought it through but they’ve thought up a clever obfuscation to get out of it. There’s no denying that life begins at conception. Scientifically that’s obviously true. Now it’s just a matter of whether it’s life you want to protect or not.
If you thought Hillary’s response was poor wait until you hear Obama’s response:
“This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So, I don’t presume to know the answer to that question. What I know, as I’ve said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we’re having these debates.”
Now, he absolutely said nothing. Firstly, he’s going to this forum in his limousine, was there no consultant, aide, campaign worker who didn’t see this question coming? How could his response be worse? “This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins.” But I have no problem stamping out that life even though I’m not firmly resolved on what it is. It’s so cavalier about the issue that it’s sickening.
It is these responses which make me believe that in the end we will gain major victories in the fight against abortion. Because they don’t really believe in what they’re saying. When politics meets morality, morality will win…eventually.
April 21, 2008 at 4:55 pm
You are right. They don’t believe what they are saying. They know exactly when life begins. But life is not their main priority. Their focus is on the money they receive from NARAL, PP and all the other institutionalized baby killers. And the votes of the selfish and self-centered. That is what makes their world go round.
April 21, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Bill Clinton actually wrote in his book that everyone knows that life begins at conception but what kind of life? Human? Potentially human?
I’ve never heard the Democrats talk so much about souls until they’re talking about killing them.
April 21, 2008 at 7:51 pm
I agree Matthew. I’m confused about how they use the term “life”. Are they using it simply in terms of biology (in which case it is false since every cell is living, even egg and sperm cells are living before coming together…bacteria live even though there is no sexual procreation), or is it, as in the life term in pro-life, the potential for living as a person on earth? In this case, it is a no brainer since an embryo, if nothing goes wrong, will eventually develop into a human person. However, no matter what the politicians believe, they will push these beliefs aside in the public sphere (I think the Pope spoke about this somewhere in his homilies).
April 21, 2008 at 11:50 pm
In my former life as an Agnostic, I used to use the line “potential human” and use my developmental biology training to obfuscate matters further. I would point out that in form, a human, a pig, and a mouse embryo are indistinguishable at early developmental stages. That in these early stages of development the fetus was merely undifferentiated similar to a stem cell line.
At what point, do we consider the combination of cells and organ systems human, I would ask my audience?
Because I never believed in a soul and that fully expressed DNA and completed Development was necessary in defining a “human”, I was able to justify abortion rather easily. And if someone held contrary positions, I dismissed them as ignorant of developmental biology, genetics specifically and science in general.
Going back a step for completeness, if we define life without a soul (this is for agnostics and atheists) as a condition that distinguishes organisms from non-organisms being manifest through replicating , metabolizing actions etc. And if we interfere and stop such actions, we are in fact destroying a life not a potential life.
As someone who supported abortion, I always admitted this – that life starts at conception – just not human life.
The point of argument shifts to when does this mass of cells, differentiated or not, become human. The same place I used to be. And for the agnostic/atheist, an out – if you will. As a person of faith, you don’t have this easy out.
Upon seeing the matter through a Catholic lens [since my reversion] and upon further reflection, I’ve come to the conclusion that I was just using what knowledge I had at the time to serve my position while ignoring or dismissing other points of view out of my perceived and mistaken sense of superiority in matters of science.
Now that I have faith, believe in a soul, and that we are created by God; I have come around to the pro-life camp.
But I ask this of my fellow faithful: How can any person of faith support abortion??? Whether scientifically trained or not? If our souls are fused along with sperm and egg during fertilization, how can we NOT define humanness at that moment – at conception?
And by believing this, how can one deny that we are killing a human being?
Contraception is another matter altogether. I struggle a bit with this but rely on my faith to accept this tenet until my intellect can wrap itself around this issue. Sometimes my intellect and faith are out of synch.
Mortuum mundo vivum in Christo,
Mark
PS: Matthew et al – you really have me going today…
April 22, 2008 at 12:29 am
I think the way you do it is you hold your hands over your eyes and your ears but never your mouth.
Catholicism and abortion seem to me to be mutually exclusive. If there is a soul you should refrain from killing it. Doesn’t that make sense?
April 22, 2008 at 1:05 am
Hi Mark,
contraception can be viewed as “alright” to some because it does not take life away. However, if you look at one of the mechanisms by which contraception works, it can be used as an abortaficient (prevents a formed embryo from implanting in the uterus). To look at contraception from a Catholic perspective, if you read the document Humana Vitae by Pope Paul VI, you will see that he predicted individuals will be more selfish, even to their significant other and sex will be reduced to something simply physical (which, from a Catholic perspective, is not the case since the marital act is a giving of oneself completely…not to sound too poetic, lol!).
The problem with this reasoning for some is that it does not give them a full scientific explanation (not an abortifacient ALL the time), but this is how the church reasons it and Pope Paul VI predictions have come true in this present day society.
April 22, 2008 at 1:58 am
Mark,
also read the Catechism. The issue of contraception is neatly summed up there. It’s all about our being called to love completely and freely. Keep in touch.