After that Saddleback forum, Obama got a lot of flack from the pro-life folks about his answer to the question of when life begins being "above [his] pay grade." I never really understood it. And since someone on this board brought it up again, I thought it might warrant a little discussion.
First off, the quote that sparked this thread:
Free$peech wrote:
President Elect Barack Obama,
Let me help you stop some of this drama,
by debatin Christians,
so Christians listen like you listen to the Dali Lama talk about change in China
give the mission permission for peace, follow the mantra
put seeds in the Tonka ‘ratha’ than go ‘afta’ Osama
bcuz you can’t deny Karma
and he too will face Allah
then waste no more time remembering this trauma
including spending another dollah seeking revenge while in Nebraska babies ‘holla’
“where you goin’, don’t drop me off momma,”
I ask yah, President Obama,
turnover Roe V Wade
in exchange for military spending swayed toward the underpaid
so solicit your spirit Christians cuz this is a fair trade
and President Elect, since not knowing when conception begins is “above your pay grade”
then let the people at the state level decide that “no more violent hands” upon the unborn be laid
for the unborn be brave
First off, why is overturning Roe v Wade a
Christian issue? I'm sorry but I don't think that being against the right to a legal abortion necessarily follows from a faith in Christ. Nor would I accept the premise that it is the Christian position that life begins at conception.
In fact, from a theological standpoint, I think that the notion that a fertilized egg is ensouled and thus becomes an individual, entitled to full human rights, at the moment of conception is nonsensical if you take into account what actually goes on in the early stages of pregnancy. Peep game:
Neil Schoenherr wrote:
Since Donum Vitae several Catholic moral theologians have noted that the fertilized egg at the blastosphere stage is not a physical individual until it is restricted by implantation in the wall of the uterus. This does not happen for about two weeks after fertilization. The early cell group can split into twins, etc., or split and be reabsorbed by the original set of cells. This argues for delayed ensoulment like Aristotle's. Those who uphold the immediate infusion of the soul at conception are forced into the rather irrational position of having God infuse billions of souls at conception and then immediately discarding the cells that bear them.
And biology aside, what is the scriptural basis for the claim that life begins at conception? If the notion that life begins at conception is a tenet of Christianity, certainly we should be able to find evidence of it in scripture.
And what about evidence to the contrary? More to the point, how do you reconcile the notion that ensoulment happens at the moment of conception with the fact that, in Exodus, the penalty for ending a woman's pregnancy is not death, which is the penalty for murder, but a fine.
Quote:
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. (Exodus 21:22)
Certainly, if it were so obvious that life begins at conception and that the rights of an unborn child are therefore equal to those of any other individual, then the penalty for killing a fetus would be the same as killing a woman--death. But according to Exodus, they are not equal and the penalties are not the same.
Furthermore, I think that if you accept the claim that the unborn are entitled to the same rights as everyone else, even in the very early stages of pregnancy, then you're forced to accept some illogical positions. In his endorsement of now president elect Obama, former Reagan speech writer Jeffery Hart noted:
Jeffery Hart wrote:
Both Obama and McCain support federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, Obama more urgently. The conservative movement publications, following Bush, have been fiercely opposed. Such opposition required a belief that a cluster of cells (the embryo) the size of the period at the end of this sentence is as important (more important?) than a seriously ill human being.
I myself cannot fathom such a mentality.
Nor can I. However, that mentality follows logically from the belief that ensoulment happens at the moment of conception.
That said, the notion that an individual isn't entitled to
any human rights until after they physically leave their mother's womb is equally ridiculous. I find it very hard, for example, to argue that late term abortions should be considered morally or even legally acceptable, except in cases where the life or health of the mother is jeopardized by carrying the pregnancy to term (and even then, it's a tough question from a moral standpoint).
Thus, I believe it follows that one is entitled to full human rights at some point after conception but before birth. I do not claim to know when that point is and I would be highly skeptical of people who do. And if you do, I would love to hear your reasoning and scriptural evidence.
So I really don't see what the big deal is about Obama holding this same position. I'm pretty sure that there's only one being that knows at which point the soul enters the body and it's not Barack Obama.
Now, as far as letting states decide the question, let me ask you this: would you support a constitutional amendment banning abortion? Do you believe that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2005 was constitutional? If so, then you are not really in favor of states rights. Furthermore, I think that the question of abortion is one of fetal rights vs. individual rights. And I don't think that questions of rights are really best left to state courts.
But what do you fools think?
Peace
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
