Vice President Biden says abortion is always wrong, but he won’t impose his views on others. Mr. Biden, are there any other human beings believe it’s wrong to kill, but won’t impose that view on others? How about newborns? How about toddlers? How about teenagers (some parents would like to kill a few)? Why not allow others to kill newborns, toddlers, and teenagers? Why do you feel the right to impose your view on others for these human beings, but not unborn humans? Why are you discriminating against the unborn?
September 23, 2015
Mr. Vice President, who else will you reluctantly let be killed with the blessing of the law?
Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics[8] Comments
Thinking to Believe 
September 24, 2015 at 7:24 am
Jason:
What Biden said is not so cut and dry as your spin bite makes it out to be. What Biden said was that as a matter of Faith he is prepared to accept that abortion is always wrong but that there are people of Faith who disagree with that point of view. In other words because he has that belief as a god fearing person there are other people of faith who are as equally god fearing and they disagree with Biden’s view.
Biden is saying is that he believes he is right in his view that abortion is always wrong and that he believes there is “human” and “being” from conception and that other opposing views are also by people as equally god fearing and people equally oriented in faith as himself.
What he is not saying but implying, is that his abortion belief is personal and he accepts that the beliefs of others of faith of a different view are also personal; in that regard, he is not prepared to impose his beliefs by legislation.
Biden therefore is not going to take the self righteous approach and try to impose his beliefs by legislation to force others to accept his belief. Biden calls his viewpoint on abortion his doctrine and even in religion all dogma is doctrine but not all doctrine is dogma so there is room for personal beliefs among the parishioners.
I personally think that there is “human” and “being” at conception and if I looked back at my own conception or at future conceptions, I would hope to be among the group in the Biden camp. However Biden would not want to go so far, in his belief as to “impose”, by fiat, a legal, authoritative decision that has absolute sanction against the beliefs of other equally god fearing people and there is heated debate within religious circles over that issue. I get that. And I think one needs to cut some slack here for Biden’s not wanting to legislate his “precise” view on others.
There is no call and no comparison for your injection of: “Why not allow others to kill newborns, toddlers, and teenagers?” That does nothing to reinforce your argument; it is purely a puerile projection.
LikeLike
September 27, 2015 at 6:46 am
Abortion is wrong. I am convinced of that and was a founding contributor to an organization that has counseled and financially helped thousands of women who have chosen to not have an abortion.
What our stock market is doing is equally wrong. We have allowed money men to manipulate the price of food world wide and it has caused tens of millions of young children to starve to death.
Jason, I read in this post your continual harp that the Republicans are right and the Democrats are wrong. I disagree with that. I do not believe Jesus would vote for any Republican or any Democrat.
Randy
LikeLike
September 28, 2015 at 5:30 am
SonofMan – What utter tosh!
Politicians are there to implement their deeply held convictions and use reasons of persuasion to reach that goal. Otherwise, it is pointless them having said convictions.
If Biden believes that abortion is wrong, then he ought to try and have it made illegal since on his own view, it would count as murder. Jason’s “puerile projection” is a valid logical position of taking Biden’s view to the extreme and showing how inanely stupid it is.
Likewise, those that believe in anarchistic liberalism ought to try and remove as much law as possible. That surely is the point of elected representatives?!?
LikeLike
September 28, 2015 at 1:42 pm
scottspeig:
Nope, afraid not. Your own argument is against your conclusion. Biden did not run for office on the single anti abortion cause if that even was one of his causes. You said that representatives are there to implement their deeply held convictions but not only do politicians hold one single deeply held conviction; they hold many convictions from economy and the like; therefore, when elected they are actually there to represent all the constituents those who voted for him and those who did not vote for him.
Biden believes that constituents have as much right to their viewpoint as you have to yours and those convictions also from people who are as profoundly convicted in their faith as the other point of view.
Jason’s extrapolation of killing your children and teenagers in comparison to the abortion issue is exactly what I said it was, not logical. Now there, you say its logical and I say it’s not logical and if our representatives was elected by a majority of two votes, whose logic would she support, your or mine. That’s the point Biden was making and which obviously went right over your head.
Thanks for the opportunity to straighten you out.
LikeLike
September 29, 2015 at 5:10 am
The problem with abortion as a discussion point is that either you believe that the unborn deserve to have the right to live, or you believe that the mother has the right to kill the unborn.
If Biden believes the former then he cannot in good conscience not legislate as in his own belief system he is allowing murder to occur (Hence Jason’s extrapolation).
He is de facto supporting abortion by not legislating even though he would not do it himself. There really isn’t a half way house in this discussion. It is either murder or not. There is no part-murder in this discussion. He is just a hypocrite in saying he disagrees with abortion but won’t try and do anything about it.
I would have thought the arguments regarding abortion would be similar in nature to the arguments regarding slavery – i.e. If you are not against then you must be for.
LikeLike
September 29, 2015 at 1:55 pm
scottspeig:
You know initially I was prepared to cut Biden some slack regarding his “constituent argument” but I concede that you are correct in your reasoning, not because what I said is “utter tosh”, but because your argument has the more sound reasoning; If somebody doesn’t practice what they preach then they should at least preach what they practice.
I said that if I was in the womb I would want to be in the Biden group who preached life but on second thought I would rather be in the camp of the one who practiced the preach and Biden is not but that is a position of the Democrat platform.
The abortion issue has always been a dilemma for politicians; on the one hand, when women were so adamant about having an abortion they were infected and dying by their own hand with dirty coat hangers in the back alleys and dying from unclean tools in the back rooms of charlatan abortionists making dirty money from their miserable work..
And of course everybody began blaming the politicians for not taking concrete steps to avoid the maiming and killing of the women described as victims of a rigid religious view about life and about when life begins. At that time when the debates were heating up the fundamentalists decried that the sperm running down the leg of the masturbator, the sperm in the condom and the sperm from withdrawal before ejaculation was akin to the denial of life for humans and projected as killing unborn children.
As I said the politician was faced with a huge dilemma about which side to line up with especially when the next elections were around the corner and many of them began siding with the “Feminist Movement” which necessarily sided with women and began fanning the flames that “Female lives matter”. After all it was a woman’s body and she had the right to choose how she wanted to use it especially when so many were being sexually exploited, raped and suffering pregnancies they did not want but did not have the power or control over their own sexuality, hence over their pregnancies.
This battle still rages on in House Hearings taking place over Planned Parenthood today framed still as women’s health issue: “The outrageous accusations leveled against Planned Parenthood based on heavily doctored videos are offensive and categorically untrue. I realize, though, that the facts have never gotten in the way of these campaigns to block women from health care they need and deserve,” Richards told the committee.
The abortion decision was rendered in the Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade 1973. That decision was modified by the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld the “central holding” in Roe, but replacing the trimester system with the point of fetal viability (whenever it may occur) as defining a state’s right to override the woman’s autonomy.
This decision was not made about when life was conceived but when that conceived life was viable outside the mother’s womb so the autonomy was key in the decision not fetal life. Since the viability was key, the woman’s choice became primary over State interest within pregnancy time periods. The ideal might be State artificial incubators but that would open up another can of worms.
LikeLike
October 31, 2015 at 12:11 pm
The only defense of Biden would be if he believes abortion is murder solely because his religion teaches him so.
Imagine if Christianity taught that killing people and killing cucumbers are both murder in God’s eyes. One would believe that killing people is objectively wrong but that the only reason to oppose killing cucumbers is religion. If his only reason to ban the action is religion, he shouldn’t make it the law.
I highly doubt Biden looks at killing a fetus in the ninth month of pregnancy as being the same as killing a cucumber. But that’s the only possible defense of Biden’s words.
The best response to anybody making the “personally opposed” argument is to ask them why they are personally opposed. “Why are you personally opposed to abortion? What’s wrong with it?” Now they squirm. Any answer that points to the humanity of the unborn is damning to them. The only way out is if they honestly have no objection to abortion apart from religion.
LikeLike
May 31, 2016 at 7:54 pm
I like this post, enjoyed this one thanks for posting .
LikeLike