Bishop Edward J. Burns’ column, “Faith, politics, and the election,” makes a curious argument regarding Vice President Biden’s position on abortion, in particular the way in which it differs from the Bishop’s beliefs and those of Congressman Paul Ryan.
Bishop Burns argues if politicians who personally oppose abortion (like Vice President Biden), but would not impose their beliefs on others, thought the same way about slavery, “...How much further behind would we be in civil rights and the understanding of human dignity if they were to have said that he personally was against the slavery of African Americans but did not want to impose their moral stance on slave-owners so that they and everyone else could have the ability to choose?” The Bishop goes on to say we might not have an African American president today if this were true.
This is quite a tortured argument, but one I feel I must address.
The Bishop, Congressman Ryan, the Catholic Church, and the Republican Party all believe that life begins at conception, and they oppose abortion in all circumstances—rape, incest, and even if the mother will die from complications of pregnancy.
In response to the Bishop, I ask the question: how much further behind would we be in civil rights and the understanding of a woman’s dignity if the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade had not decided that a woman’s right to privacy extends to her decision to have an abortion?
If our country is governed by men like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, who have vowed to make abortion a criminal act, American women, Catholic and non-Catholic, will be made slaves to unwanted pregnancies even if the pregnancy will result in the woman’s death.
Bishop Burns states, “The attack against the very essence of human life, such as abortion, constitutes an intrinsic evil.”
Is not “the very essence of human life” the woman who bears the child? How then does Bishop Burns justify prohibiting an abortion that would save the life of the mother?
There are many questions relating to how “…believers and non-believers decide how we should uphold the common good and a natural moral order by exercising our right to vote,” in the Bishop’s words. I will cast my ballot for President Obama and Vice President Biden who share my beliefs.
I believe the common good and natural moral order are better served when a woman can make her own private medical decisions and not become a slave and perhaps even die because of conditions imposed by others.
• Metcalfe is Alaska’s Democratic National Committeewoman. She is a former Catholic who left the church in the 1960s because of its positions against women.
Comments (163)
Add commentTo Lat
philosophy does not get overcome by the age, it endures and gets perspective. The philosophy of the Old Testament (which is, admittedly, a bold statement) still enables the modern state of Israel. Kiekegaard's moment of fear & trembling endured the horrors of Nazi occupation-- yes, horror at what a pure race, a pure destiny was entitled to. And Whitehead could withstand the abject reality of the Red Army sweeping across E. Europe with millions of axes to grind. Can you fathom a god that would allow such travisty? Women in general -- 8 to 80 yrs old -- raped to death.
And yet, my God is at ease, and I am still his subject. Yes, unbelievable.
@JNUKara
you missed the bus; you are pro-abortion. And we have been talking about you behind your back for a full week now.
Kara
This bus will idle at the curb, belching out smoke, for quite some time yet. Plenty of time to hop on board. Destination unknown.
Ignore grendel's provocations - he confuses 'pro-abortion' with 'pro-rationality'. Swimmergirl is my hero as well.
to Latitude58: Grendel's take
when does the soul mate with flesh? upon conception. that is my belief.
But you were-- all of us were-- at least in God's mind, a full potentiality before then. What you did with that is out of His hands. I guess that makes God a dependent. Imagine that.
Bill… All killing during war
Bill…
All killing during war is not OK. I.E. Nuremburg, the Khmer Rouge Killing Fields, the Rwandan Genocide, etc, etc.
Killing animals only for fun is not OK.
These seem to be very clear and easy moral issues…don’t kill animals for fun and don’t murder people...
Lat,
So if I kill a dandelion in my yard, that's wrong?
Did you eat it and need to kill it to live..That’s OK. Or did you kill it for aesthetics (vanity/Pride) then it’s wrong.
And if I kill a brown bear simply to hang the pelt on my wall, that's wrong? Yes (Pride/Vanity).
And if I cut a tree down to improve my view, that's wrong?
Did you require the view to survive? If not then it is wrong. (Gluttony, Pride)
Slapping a mosquito that is not threatening to bite me (now) is wrong?
Do you believe it may bite you later and cause you harm? If not then it’s wrong. (Wrath, Pride)
--These are not just my perceptions of right and wrong, they tie into very simple religious (especially catholic) concepts that have been around for thousands of years.
Granted, none of us (Priest/Rabbis/Preachers included) can avoid all sin but we can set the bar high and ask for forgiveness when we miss that mark. (When we ask for forgiveness what we are really doing is admitting we did something wrong)The main thing is that we keep trying to no matter how many times we fail to hit that mark.
noroad
If war is not ok, then why do we start them?
Ah, maybe progress then
Thanks noroad,
That explanation helps a lot. Your positions demonstrate logical, ethical consistency. And put you at odds with many core Alaskan values. I never pegged you for such a dandelion-hugging softie...
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to assume that you are not a proponent of passing laws prohibiting the wanton murder of dandelions or acorns. What is the threshold where your interpretation of sin should be imposed upon others?
Grendel,
To be clear, by conception you mean when the egg and sperm join and combine their genetic materials?
Surgical sterilization would seem to thwart God's grand designs as well.
Perhaps you would be well served to include Hawking and other theoretical physicists into your suite of philosophers. The picture of the universe they're starting to assemble may align rather unexpectedly with your belief of God's potentialities. Every possible conception, every possible child, is born in some parallel universe. You may find it comforting...or disturbing.
Perhaps God is the ultimate 'bet-hedger'.
Bill, I don’t know. War is
Bill,
I don’t know. War is hell.
Lat, I would set the
Lat,
I would set the threshold as this: The strong may not destroy the weak. The powerful may not abuse the helpless. The dominant may not take advantage of the vulnerable.
We already have laws that speak to this threshold and society’s moral interpretation is already used to take away the freedom of the strong whom hurt and abuse the weak.
This is proven with the deemed illegality of actions against the weak and vulnerable like…
Rape, Pedophilia, Statuary Rape, Animal Cruelty, Child/Spouse abuse, etc, etc.
Abortion for convenience is also a crime against the helpless by the strong. We (society) do have the moral and legal authority to ban the practice…if we choose to do so.
Actually Grendel
If God is hanging eternal torment and damnation over my head if I fail to get in line with his plan, I don't see how that makes him a "dependent". An extortionist seems to be a more apt description.
noroad@grendel
Sorry to disappoint you and grendal, but and zygote doesn't become a human until until several weeks into conception!
Then too just because the 2 of you (and others) think abortion is wrong, why is it wrong for others? We humans were given free choice, and that means for everyone
correction, noroad
Abortion for convenience is also a SIN against the helpless by the strong, according to your view. But it's not necessarily a crime...today
Crimes are artificial constructs, reflecting society's values.
Based on your explanation, is there not some merit in the pro-choice position that anti-abortion laws might also represent the dominant (the government) taking advantage of the helpless (pregnant women)? After all, there IS a history of officially sanctioned subjugation of women in this country.
I note your specific reference to "convenience". Would an abortion following a rape or incest qualify as 'convenient'? Or is there some room for judgment there?
You do have free choice but
Bill,
You do have free choice but if you use that choice to harm others (i.e. pedophilia) we as a just society have the right to take away your freedom to choose.
Lat, There would only be
Lat,
There would only be merit if the government forced the women to get pregnant. That is not the case. The government is only applying its dominance to protect the weaker fetus from the stronger mother.
In the case of rape, an abortion places no moral blame on the women who chooses abortion; and should thus be legal for the women. The perpetrator of the rape carries the entirely of the moral burden for both the pregnancy and also the decision to abort. This is the same concept that frees women from any moral burden due to miscarriage, they are blameless.
In the strictest sense, a woman that chooses abortion IS killing a life but is killing that life only to ensure the survival of her own genetic line. It would be the same if she were to kill a cell that was attacked by a virus and injected with virus DNA.
However; if she chooses to create a life (have sex) and share her genetic line with someone else she is then fully culpable, morally and legally, for the treatment of that life.
OK
Your logic is consistent and comprehensible. Thank you for that explanation.
A zygote is not a person, only a potential person (acorn - oak tree) and thus has no fundamental right to government protection. It largely hinges around the 'personhood' argument, which I reject. But I wish my definition of personhood was as succinct as your explanations for protection are. Not assigning personhood until birth seems to fly in the face of reality. But assigning personhood to an in vitro fertilized egg in a petri dish does as well. I can support a ban on late-term abortions that aren't medically necessary.
The values that are in tension here are your 'protect the weak from being exploited by the strong' and the 'freedom from unnecessary government intrusion' that under-girds our constitution. Oddly, in this instance the positions of the right & left have been nearly reversed.
My position is that, given the gray area, this is a moral decision for the woman to make. While you and I might not agree with her decision, it's a slippery slope letting the government take over that decision on her behalf. The argument about "protecting the weaker fetus from the stronger mother" is weakened due to the special relationship that the mother already has with that fetus - giving it life and sustenance. Rather different from the hunter & prey or greens-keeper & dandelion.
Any issue with free, and widely available contraception, along with a very comprehensive school sex education program starting at an early age? Seems that, as uncomfortable as that might make some, if it reduces the incidence of unwanted pregnancies...
Grendel and Noroad....
I appreciate that both of you have your own, strongly held, personal beliefs. I believe we agree that those beliefs are influenced by your religion. It's also not in question that you are 100% free to act according to those beliefs.
But Grendel - you said it yourself -
"1. It is not good policy to legislate according to gender, race, religion, or otherwise."
On this you are correct. It's not good policy to legislate according to religion, because religion is a widely moving target, meaning different things to different people. We live in a very diverse society. One that is a model for the entire world, because we insist on individual freedoms over religion. Within our society, we have hundreds of different, strongly held, belief systems - Ethics and morality. The problem arises when some are unable to stop themselves from projecting the "right" morals (their own) onto everybody else. Where does this end? The Jewish faith holds tattoos are immoral. Some cultures today find nothing immoral about arranged marriages. Other cultures and faiths contained within the US believe women should not work outside the home. Do we adopt them all into law? They are all equally "moral" and "ethical" to those who believe them. Or do we strive to stay out of them as much as possible, allowing each person to do what he/she feels is "moral" for themselves, within the bounds of our current laws?
Latitude said it best - given that there is such a grey area - this decision still lies best with the women.
Grendel qualifies legitimate for Grendel - I qualify legitimate for myself. I may feel that traveling to someone else's country, though they did not have WMD's, and did not have the technology to seriously hurt us, and killing them, is not "legitimate". You do. Why are you "right" and not me?
Noroad also says that some killing in war is wrong, genocide, for example - but insinuates not all - so it's not ok for the strong to kill the weak - unless it's the U.S. killing unorganized folks living in dirt huts? Are we not much stronger?
Grendel values a collection of cells more than a person in another country who is standing before him - I do not agree with that.
Even in the case of the "morality" of abortion - you might think it's ok in the case of the health of the mother - other people don't (Paul Ryan, for example). Who's "morality" is "right" on that issue? Yours? Why you and not Ryan - he's just as "right" in his own mind, correct? Other people would take it even farther - banning all contraception as "immoral". Why not investigate misscarraiges - certainly we can find someone who believes if a pregnant woman smokes that's "immoral" - lock her up for murder if she miscarries.
"Morality" is not nearly as clean or one-directional as you think, because you - so far as I can tell - have not thought about it from other perspectives besides your own.
Individual freedom is not a difficult proposition - it simply means you have to be personally able to take your personal beliefs, cherish them as your own, and recognize that other people in this country have the same rights as you to hold their own beliefs, even if they contradict yours. Granted, it's not easy to do that - it's much easier to be self-rightious and think, "Of course I am right, other people should behave as I would".
I'm always struck by two things:
First - that pro-lifers often seem very comfortable blanketing all Muslims as evil, and perfectly ok with traveling to their countries and killing them.
Second - that if pro-lifers spent even 10% of the time, money, and effort they put into trying to control other people into educating children on the dangers of intercourse and how to protect themselves, broadening contraceptive coverage, and helping young unwed mothers and children - they would - in my opinion, prevent a lot more abortions than they do with their current tactics.
Noroad and Lat - I've enjoyed following your conversation today - you both are eloquent and consistent.
"The bible tells us when a
"The bible tells us when a fetus becomes a living being.
Many people think that a human being is created at the time of conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living human being. According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.
After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.
In Job 33:4, it states: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”
Again, to quote Ezekiel 37:5&6, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.”
In Exodus 21:22 it states that if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death. It should be apparent from this that the aborted fetus is not considered a living human being since the resulting punishment for the abortion is nothing more than a fine; it is not classified by the bible as a capital offense.
According to the bible, destroying a living fetus does not equate to killing a living human being even though the fetus has the potential of becoming a human being. One can not kill something that has not been born and taken a breath."
delete dupe post
delete dupe post
Kara
Bible aside, what is it at 8 months? 7 months?... That's the rub.
The two extremes are: 'moment of conception'; and 'draws first breath'. While an argument can be made for each, and they each make for easy policy development, neither one strikes me as being particularly rational.
Despite that, I find it difficult to believe that a mentally competent woman would choose an abortion at 8 months. Nor would a medical provider participate.
We're allowing the extremists to own this debate.
SG, --SG, you have the right
SG,
--SG, you have the right to believe what you want in the US (freedom of religion, philosophy, political dogma, etc.) You can almost do anything you want as long as you don’t hurt others…but as soon as you hurt others then we as a society have the right and responsibility to step in and stop your actions. We did this for slavery and we do it for pedophiles, rapist, spouse abusers, etc. If we decide abortion is immoral we then have every right and the responsibility to make it illegal.
--(QUOTE)“…. so it's not ok for the strong to kill the weak - unless it's the U.S. killing unorganized folks living in dirt huts?”
No…it is not OK for the US to kill the weak.
(Quote) “First - that pro-lifers often seem very comfortable blanketing all Muslims as evil, and perfectly ok with traveling to their countries and killing them”.
None of the pro-lifers I know are OK with that. You must travel with a tough crowd.
Responsibility
Noroad - one of your positions is that because a woman willingly engaged in sex, she must bear the full consequences of any resulting pregnancy, with no options except 9 months of pregnancy, labor, and delivery.
If she was having sex with the intention of becoming pregnant, then changed her mind, I could possibly understand that position. But in the cases of an unwanted pregnancy, most likely she was not engaging in sex in order to become pregnant. She likely had different objectives - it felt good, it was fun, enhanced a relationship, reward a man for changing the oil in her care, fell for some dude's line, get paid cash... plenty of reasons.
A woman might have sex dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of times without becoming pregnant, so obviously procreation isn't the only purpose of sex in humans. In the vast majority of the animal kingdom sex is specifically for procreation, and not a lot of energy is expended on it otherwise. It clearly serves additional purposes in humans.
Your logic on the consequences is akin to saying that if you ate candy and developed a cavity, the only recourse you should have is to allow it to progress until it kills the tooth, creating an agonizing toothache in the process, resulting in extraction. I mean, no one forced you to eat that candy after all.
Your entire moral argument hinges on the contention that a person appears at conception.
I keep coming back to in vitro fertilization. The procedure there is that multiple eggs are harvested and fertilized, but only one or two are used to create a pregnancy. How does your moral framework accommodate that circumstance?
Should it not be permitted at all, even though the end result is a live person(s)? Since there is no practical alternative to fertilizing multiple eggs (a necessary part of the procedure), and no practical alternative as to the disposition of the excess fertilized eggs, what should become of them? The procedure is entirely voluntary. Should those zygotes ('the weak') be legally protected from the lab technician ('the strong') who would empty the petri dish at the end of the procedure? Or should the whole procedure be banned even though the intent and outcome is a new life that would not have otherwise existed?
Obviously reproductive and genetic technological advances are going to further cloud this issue.
Again, my position is that when there is considerable gray surrounding an issue, such as in this case, the default position should be for the individual (mother) to decide rather than the government. That's what freedom is about. Governments don't have morals.
Lat,If a fertilized egg is
Lat,
--If a fertilized egg is destroyed during the in vitro process then the death of that baby/person/potential person/fetus/etc has a moral price. So…Yes the Government should ensure that fertilized eggs are not created and then discarded for convenience…the final result does not justify the means.
Would the woman who was getting the in vitro die unless she got pregnant? If not, then she is killing out of convenience and not necessity.
---If a women chooses to engage in the procreation process (sex) then she is responsible for the new life create by that process, and must carry the burdens that go with it. Sex is a powerful thing…
--- How you treat your teeth is your business. They are not a separate living entity with a distinct and original DNA fingerprint.
---There is little grey area regarding whether it’s right or wrong to kill the weak for convenience. You have said yourself you wouldn’t oppose a ban on late-term non-necessary abortion. So the questions really becomes when does life begin…I then submit that an acorn is alive…and a dandelion is alive..and a fetus is alive…seems easy enough.
---The only legitimate government is a government rooted in morality.
A non-moral government is an abomination.
noroad
Have you read Junkara's post. about the BREATH of LIFE? If the Bible says that life begins with the first breath why do Only Christians believe otherwise? ALL other faiths believe Live begins at Birth!
Bill, I am assuming you are
Bill,
I am assuming you are refering to person status begining at birth. Here are some ideas about abortion from other major relgions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/abortion_1.shtml
--Islamic teachings on abortion
Islam rarely permits abortion after 120 days. This fetus is about 112 days old © Muslims regard abortion as wrong and haram (forbidden), but many accept that it may be permitted in certain cases.
---Buddhists believe that life should not be destroyed, but they regard causing death as morally wrong only if the death is caused deliberately or by negligence.
Traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a life.
Buddhists regard life as starting at conception.
---Judaism and abortion
Judaism does not forbid abortion, but it does not permit abortion on demand. Abortion is only permitted for serious reasons.
Strict Judaism permits abortion only in cases where continuing the pregnancy would put the mother's life in serious danger.
---Hinduism and abortion
When considering abortion, the Hindu way is to choose the action that will do least harm to all involved: the mother and father, the foetus and society.
Hinduism is therefore generally opposed to abortion except where it is necessary to save the mother's life.
Classical Hindu texts are strongly opposed to abortion: one text compares abortion to the killing of a priest another text considers abortion a worse sin than killing one's parents another text says that a woman who aborts her child will lose her caste
Just for the record, I am not
Just for the record, I am not religious and personally believe the bible is a work of fiction. However, for those claiming biblical teachings for their position on abortion - there is the bible's own words.
And now, for noroad's statement: "If a women chooses to engage in the procreation process (sex) then she is responsible for the new life create by that process, and must carry the burdens that go with it. Sex is a powerful thing"
Are you sure that's what you want to go with?? "she is responsible" and "must carry the burdens that go with it"? Really? Just "she" is responsible, huh? What an extremely sexist remark. If "she" is responsible - and not "he" as well, then I'm going with "it's none of your damn business what 'she' does about it then."
JNU, You are 100% right..He
JNU,
You are 100% right..He is also responsible and must carry the burden (and receive the joy) that goes with making a women pregnant. His burdens are different as he cannot carry, birth, or nurse the baby, but he still has very real responsibilities.
This is very basic stuff…Don’t we all agree that a man has responsibilities when he gets a women pregnant?
Noroad
If you read what you wrote about other philosophies and their feelings about abortion, you will notice that all say abortion is correct in certain circumstances. It only Christians that say it is always wrong.
to Lat58
I have taken Hawkins into consideration, and Alfred North Whitehead too, and have arrived at a philosophy that has room for you, me, Ken Dunker II, and even the heretic Mike Dz. Even swimmergirl has a place in Grendel's paradise. Just ask.
Bill, Perhaps you should do
Bill,
Perhaps you should do more research before you develop your beliefs.
Mormons: Abortion is considered by Mormons to be a great evil in this world and the shedding of innocent blood. Church leaders have condemned it except in very rare instances such as rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life, but this should still be considered very prayerfully and seriously. When a woman, even a young girl, becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest, she truly has no choice in the matter. A woman who engages in sexual relations by choice knows the risk she takes. http://mormon.lds.net/mormon-beliefs/abortion
Church Of England: “That in situations where the continuance of a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother a termination of pregnancy may be justified and that there must be adequate and safe provision in our society for such situations.”
Church of England General Synod, 1983
The Methodist: Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection. http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1732
swimmergirl
you make my head swim. Would you put a gun to the head of a 7 month fetus? Why not? Why not at 4 months? You are a reasonable person, why not at three months? Are you a killer? I am. I've done it at 650 months, several times.