Tag: abortion

Biden On Abortion

Is Biden’s answer to the abortion question a good defense of the pro-choice position? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Like many of you last night, I watched the vice-presidential debate and I was definitely pleased to hear the abortion question come up. Thankfully, Ryan did not get interrupted during what I thought was an excellent answer. Ryan got to the facts of what abortion is, which is the main question to answer. Then we turned to Biden, who like Ryan, is Catholic. Biden gave an answer that I’m sure many Christians thought would be difficult to argue against. Is it really a good response? Let’s find out.

Biden: My religion defines who I am. And I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help.

Response: Of course, we would not have much problem with this. Granted, I am not a Catholic, but by and large, we would not have problems as Christians even if we’re not Catholics with the idea that we should help others who cannot take care of themselves. The difference is I would include babies in the womb at this point.

Biden: With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call de fide. Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.

Reply: Here is the key point. Biden has just said life begins at conception, which is exactly what Ryan had said earlier. This is the opinion of the RCC as well. Biden says that he accepts it personally.

Biden: But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and — I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.

Reply: For many, this sounds so good and non-judgmental and tolerant, which is what we’re taught to be. “I personally am against abortion, but I’m not going to limit your freedom to do that.”

And hey, we don’t want anyone imposing their worldview on us. Right? We don’t want to live in a theocracy or anything like that do we? What could we have against this?

Biden’s problem is that his view is imposing. Let’s look at this with what he says next.

Biden: I — I do not believe that — that we have a right to tell other people that women, they — they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court — I’m not going to interfere with that.

Reply: Once again, this fits with our modern milleu, but it assumes at the start that the life in the woman is her body, which is just its first major problem. If that life in there is something that might depend on the woman but is itself not part of the woman, then it is not the woman’s body. It is another body that is growing inside of the body of the woman.

We also do a number of times tell women they can’t control their body. If a woman goes out and strips nude in a public place, we will arrest her. It’s her body, but she is not allowed to publicly expose herself. If a woman gets drunk and tries to drive, we will arrest her for what she is doing with her own body. The idea that if someone does something with their own body then it is automatically justifiable is simply false.

Now by and large, we do let people do what they want with their own bodies, but only until they endanger the freedom of another. You have the right to free speech, but that does not mean you can use it to walk into a crowded theater and yell “Fire!” or make a threat on the life of a government official. Recently someone on Twitter, for instance, said they would assassinate Mitt Romney. While they later said it was a joke, one suspects the Secret Service might not be laughing.

Biden’s position is in fact imposing. He is imposing the idea on people that the baby in the womb is included in the woman’s body and is not a separate body. For the sake of argument, he could be right about that. That needs to be argued. If this is a life, as Biden himself has said, then Biden is essentially saying that he believes this is a new life that has come into existence and he is opposed to abortion, but he will not stop it if a woman wants to do that, even though, as said, it is a new life.

Would the same apply to a toddler? Would Biden be personally against killing a toddler, but if a woman wants to do that to her toddler, well that’s her right? As has been said, there is nothing magical about the birth canal that suddenly makes the baby a new life. The question we could ask Biden is at what point does it become wrong to kill the life and why is it at that point since you hold that life begins at conception?

We also all impose our views on another person to an extent. Every law is the imposition of someone’s view. If I’m out driving, I cannot suddenly drive on the left side of the road here in America and respond to the police officer with “Don’t impose your views of driving on me!” Every law is built on some moral basis and it is declared that a society is better if it follows that moral basis than if it does not.

What are we saying about abortion? We are making a statement about life in relation to abortion. There are people who are saying to give out contraception so there will be fewer abortions and if it is not given, we will keep having sex and you will be responsible for the abortions.

No. We’re not. We’re not responsible for what someone else does. If someone wants to avoid pregnancy, then there are contraceptives out there they can use. There are natural family planning routes as well one can take for those who do not support contraception. However, if you have sex when it is prone to bring about pregnancy and you get pregnant, the person responsible is you and the person you had sex with. (This is assuming a natural case and not the case of something like rape) If you choose to abort, you are not forced to. You choose to. (All things being equal. I know there are sad cases where a husband or boyfriend or some other figure forces an abortion.) This is simply emotional blackmail.

What needs to be asked is if this is the kind of behavior we want to promote? Do we want to promote the idea that sex is a natural act just like any other act and can be done with most anyone and anywhere, or do we want to promote the idea that sex, while a natural act, is a sacred act that is reserved for those who have given the highest level of trust to one another? Do we want to say it should happen in marriage so that children born can be raised by their biological mother and father in a stable and committed relationship?

Biden’s own position has him doing an imposition on the baby especially. The baby is denied the right to exist in this world in the name of supposed freedom of the mother. We would not allow the killing of a toddler or a young child for that reason. Why do we allow it for abortion?

The rest of what Biden says is more into political aspects I will not get into. I simply wish to point out that Biden’s argument does not work. If life begins at conception, as Biden says, then Biden is saying he thinks the taking of innocent life should be legal. This is not a position a Christian should take. It would be interesting to see if they have not spoken out already what the RCC happens to think of Biden’s position. It could be someone might not be allowed to partake of the Eucharist.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

A Response to Sandra Fluke

Should we be in support of abortion? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

While I have rarely gone after speeches that have been given in politics here, Sandra Fluke will be an exception. I won’t deny at the outset that I am thoroughly Republican and Conservative. I was interested in seeing what she had to say seeing as the only thing I can think of she’s known for is the pushing that health care should cover birth control. This said from someone who is studying law and generally, you have to make good money to do that.

Put this in perspective. My Mrs. and I have the case with both of us being unemployed now and we still pay for our own. It costs about $25 a month. We’re hardly going broke on that.

At any rate, let’s go through the speech and see what she said. For any interested, the transcript I have comes from the Daily Kos and will be linked at the end. Fluke starts off with this:

“Some of you may remember that earlier this year, Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception. In fact, on that panel, they didn’t hear from a single woman, even though they were debating an issue that affects nearly every woman.”

I think she has a great idea! Why should we accept decisions made by men concerning women when not a single woman is on the panel that decides! Such a decision should be seen as automatically invalid!

You know, kind of like the Supreme Court panel that decided on Roe V. Wade and consisted of all men.

I wonder if Fluke would stand by that decision or not. Could it be that the main point to look at is not “Who made the decision” but “Why did they make the decision?”

Fluke goes on to warn us about two futures for our country. What does she say?

“In that America, your new president could be a man who stands by when a public figure tries to silence a private citizen with hateful slurs.”

Because we’ve seen all the support that has come out for women like Ann Romney, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and others. Numerous women have been insulted. Has Sandra Fluke forgotten the recent comments of Jason Biggs? Is Sandra Fluke unaware of the women who spoke at the RNC? In fact, for Fluke, let’s go back and talk about Carrie Prejean. All she did was say that marriage is between a man and a woman and before too long, she was being joked about in the media with jokes being made about her body. Yes. There was an attempt to silence Prejean.

Btw, this would be in the name of tolerance as well.

Next she says

“Who won’t stand up to the slurs, or to any of the extreme, bigoted voices in his own party.”

We’ll be eagerly awaiting for the repudiation of people like Jason Biggs. I personally do not endorse anyone who speaks slurs in such a way regardless of their party. It is ironic that she makes such a statement while talking about bigotry. Which side is it that is most often wanting to call someone a bigot?

“An America in which access to birth control is controlled by people who will never use it;”

I’m still unsure of what she’s talking about. We have no problem getting birth control here, but of course, it’s most likely Fluke has in mind that other form of birth control called “abortion.” It never seems to occur to her that there could be actual moral objections to abortion. Fluke and others have this idea that the reason people want to ban abortion is that there is some sort of war on women going on.

“in which politicians redefine rape so survivors are victimized all over again”

This is likely about Todd Akin. Keep in mind Romney and others came out against that statement. Ann Coulter even wrote a piece demanding that Todd Akin drop out of the race. We try to clean up our own house.

What does Fluke want instead?

“First of all, we’d have the right to choose.”

The right to choose what? For instance, can I say I want to live in a country where I have the right to shut down someone just because they’re a woman? There is such a thing as the freedom to choose, but the goal of freedom is to choose the good and not just choose what you’d like. The question we have to ask is not “Do we want the freedom to abort?” but rather “Is this a good freedom to have?”

One of my contentions in the abortion debate is that we do not deny that there is always a good desired in the case of abortion. Women can abort for safety from lovers, for financial security, for their health, for their jobs. These in themselves are not bad things. The question is are we seeking good means to those things. Is abortion a good means to a good end or is it a bad means to a bad end? If it is the latter, we should seek to do away with it. If it is the former, then let us keep it.

If people like myself are right, abortion is not a great giver of freedom. It is a great limiter. It limits the freedom of the baby to exist. Sandra Fluke may get to choose, but by her actions, the baby she could carry will never get to choose. IF we keep in mind how many of those aborted babies are female, then we could easily say that the real war on women is coming from the pro-abortion side and the ones who really value women are the pro-life said.

It is sad that part of the view that we have a war on women is because some people are against abortion. Is that the only way women can be free? Women can only be free if they are allowed to have sex without consequences? For those who would be supposedly against turning women into sex objects, why is it that they treat themselves only according to a sexual purpose? Looking at my own Mrs., sex is a great part of our relationship, but it is certainly not the only part. Let us not deny that it is important to realize women are sexual beings, but they do more than just sex. My wife is an encouragement, a support, she fixes meals, she takes care of the house, she listens to a lot of my crazy ideas, and she is a great comfort in any time of distress I have. Sex for us is an important part of that expression of our love for one another and one could say the greatest expression of that love, but it is not the only aspect we each have.

“in which we decide when to start our families.”

You have that right right now. You can do that. We are doing that. I do not see any reason to think that this is going to change. Listening to Sandra Fluke, you’d think that all Republicans want women to be barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen again. It just isn’t so. Many of us believe in the great things women can do and encourage them. That is one reason so many women were speakers at the RNC.

“An America in which our president, when he hears a young woman has been verbally attacked, thinks of his daughters—not his delegates or donors—and stands with all women. And strangers come together, reach out and lift her up. And then, instead of trying to silence her, you invite me here—and give me a microphone—to amplify our voice. That’s the difference.”

We eagerly await the news of all the standing up that was done for Carrie Prejean. We also look forward to the support that is to be given to the women that have been slandered by Jason Biggs. Or is it rather the case that only certain women get that kind of treatment? You will get the favors if you walk the line of the feminist movement. As soon as you come out as being pro-life, you are not worthy any more.

Not everything has been covered of course, but what we see in Fluke’s speech overall is simply an appeal to fear as if we will suddenly live in the supposed Dark Ages again if Republicans get elected. Well I have a fear as well. I have a fear about how many more babies could be killed in the future if this trend continues. I worry about what will happen if personal autonomy becomes the rallying point for America instead of the good of the society as a whole. I worry about people who are listening more to emotion than to reason and data.

The greatest freedom for women would in fact be the freedom to be women, and part of that would be to be able to celebrate the gift of being able to give birth, something that only a woman can do and thus something incredibly feminine. It is a shame the so-called party of women just doesn’t see it that way.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

The link to Fluke’s talk can be found

Faith Aloud’s Victimization Complex

So is 40 Days For Life a threat? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A group called Faith Aloud has a counter to 40 Days For Life called 40 Days For Choice. They have written on their web site (link below) about what 40 Days For Life is and that it is an intimidation force. Is this an accurate way to picture them?

Let’s start with the perspective of the person working for 40 Days For Life. Abortion is murder for them. Every single time a woman enters who’s pregnant, there’s a possibility that one person could not be coming out of their alive, and that would be the baby in the womb. What would you be willing to do within the teachings of Christ to stop that? 40 Days For Life believes in showing the love of Christ to such and let them know there are people who love them and are willing to take care of them and help them through this time.

Faith Aloud says that it is not loving to bring crowds of people to judge women in private decisions. The reality is that there is not judgment of women but judgment of abortion. And furthermore, since when it is that judgment exactly became a stigma in our nation?

I don’t know about anyone else, but when Mr. and Mrs. Peters go to bed at night, we lock the doors to our house. Right now, our car is in the driveway and the doors are locked. Whenever we have children, we plan on making a few judgments on who will get to babysit them.

Judgment is necessary and what the Choice group is saying to the Life group is essentially that their opinion does not matter. It is saying that they are not allowed to have that opinion publicly shown to those who think contrary.

Today as I was in a small grocery store here in the Tennessee area, I heard “The Old Rugged Cross” playing. Now let us suppose I heard something that I thought was offensive. Aside from it maybe being something sexually explicit or endorsing violence that I think would be harmful to kids, I don’t really say anything.

My thinking? It could be something annoying but so what? I can just make the choice we’re all told to make in Elementary School, and that’s the choice to ignore. It’s amazing that an age where people are always told to “Believe in yourself” also seems to have this message that you need to be concerned about what other people think.

Instead, today we play the victim game. It’s done constantly in the media. People who want to get ahead can easily paint themselves as victims. The best way to silence the opposition is to paint yourselves as a victim to them. After all, who wants to side with a bully?

This is not to say that victimization and bullying does not occur, but simple disagreement is not enough to qualify for that. Having another group disagree with you is not intimidation. If people thinking about getting abortions are reacting, could it be because they’re honestly realizing that what they’re doing is wrong and they have second thoughts?

Let’s suppose they say “Well Nick, how would you like it if we had several people come from Faith Aloud while you were at 40 Days For Life? Would you like that?”

I think my reply to this would be “Do you promise to?”

Seriously. I want them there. I want them there in droves. I want them to come and present the case for abortion and let us present the case against abortion. I would be absolutely thrilled. After all, a person confident in their position does not need to worry about being “intimidated.”

Perhaps instead of trying to silence by mischaracterization, Faith Aloud will be able to present an argument about why 40 Days For Life has a wrong stance on abortion if they think the can. Maybe they want the intimidation tactic because the argument is weak?

In Christ,
Nick Peters

http://40daysforchoice.weebly.com/about-40-days-for-life.html