Maybe it is going too far to say I support Biden's position, but I think he may have stated the role of personal faith in politics correctly last night in his debate with Paul Ryan. Moderator Martha Raddatz pointed out that both debaters were Catholic and asked how that faith would affect their governing.
Ryan said he believed that life begins at conception then went straight to the campaign position that abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. This position is not logically sustainable (see my earlier post,) nor is it proper Catholic teaching. According to Catholics for Choice, "The Catholic church hierarchy today does not permit abortion in any instance, not even in case of rape or as a direct way of saving the life of a pregnant woman." Historically, given the tough choice between saving a mother or her child, the Catholic position has been to save the child. The Ryan position fails both as a reflection of his faith and as a logically defensible argument.
Biden, on the other hand, gave a slightly more consistent answer. He said he too believed that life begins at conception and was against abortion as a personal matter of faith. However, he said that he did not believe he had the right to impose his religious beliefs on society. Much as I hate to say it, I must agree with Joe; America was founded as and continues to be a place where citizens may embrace any religion or none at all with no interference from government - almost.
The flaw in the pro-choicers' argument stems from the basic position outlined by both men in last night's debate: life begins at conception. While the Judeo-Christian scriptures do support this claim, it is more than a religious principle. Logic firmly supports it as well. There is no way to distinguish between the fertilized egg and the post-partum result of that fertilization. The humanity of the life form is different only by degree. As I said in my earlier post, it is a slippery slope to begin judging which humans are human enough to deserve to live.
Ryan (and ostensibly his running mate) wants to allow the murder of innocents if circumstances seem to warrant it. This violates the principles of both faith and reason. Biden (and Obama) are equally inconsistent. It sounds democratic (small "d") to say one will not allow personal ideology to influence public policy. Forgetting the ridiculous impossibility of such a position, this too violates faith and reason. It is unreasonable because one who believes that life begins at conception (a logical conclusion) cannot condone the taking of that life for any reason. It violates Joe's faith because his church disagrees.
Ken Ham has been correctly preaching for years that as Christians in society, we should focus on battling the foundational flaws in humanistic philosophy (aka religion,) rather than merely opposing its policies. Laws must be founded on some ideal; moral relativism leads to anarchy when what's right for you may not be right for me. To see the frightening result of such thinking, one need only read a few words by such Pragmatists as the old William James and John Dewey or the newer spokesmen, Cornel West and Richard Rorty. Peter Singer, a utilitarian pragmatist from Princeton, who appears to have ice water in his veins, will positively terrify any thoughtful, considerate human being with his support of outright infanticide and euthanasia.
I still plan to vote for Romney/Ryan because I believe their position on abortion is closer to mine than Obama/Biden, but I wish someone would stake out a truly pro-life position. I also wish Christian politicians would stop wobbling on their faith commitment. Everyone makes decisions based on some assumption about truth. This nation was unashamedly founded on the assumption that a Creator invested humans with inalienable rights and the government's job is to protect those rights.
Muslims, Bhuddists and atheists are all safe under an American government anchored to Biblical principles. The same cannot be said for Christians under a Muslim government. It certainly would not be true if Peter Singer were king. And apparently, there will still be a few of the unborn who will not be safe even under a Romney/Ryan administration. That's a shame.
No comments:
Post a Comment