Joe Biden Attempt to Explain His Abortion Position

[07amandah]

There is NO debate in the Church, Biden. Your views are outside of Church teaching.

[djk84]

Why does the abortion debate always have to be about religion? Sure the Catholic Church is the most prominent in this issue, but that is just because they are a massive organization with a strong value for innocent life. These politicians use this religious argument to draw a line. You're either with the Catholics or not. When does life begin? It's a moral and scientific question, more than a religious one. Constitutionally, we are all created, not "born", equal. The "creation" has rights.

[Nerocification]

Joe Biden claimed that the $862 Billion failed stimulus ($400 remains unspent) “created or saved” 750,000 jobs. Economists don’t recognize jobs saved, and the jobs saved may have been keep local agencies afloat. When the money ran out, the people lost their jobs. Currently States are considering filing bankruptcy for spending. watch?v=IqmeT5ykKf0

The Govt owns 61% of GM, GOOGLE, “GM's electric-car fantasy running out of gas” and read links. The Green Movement should be free market driven

[marketwatch101]

Somewhere along Biden's pedigree a bitch got over the wall!

[marketwatch101]

Biden is a fake Catholic.

"I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos." Sir Thomas Moore

[zzzak123]

@marketwatch101

NICE QUOTE!

[badmf13]

The only thing dumber than religion is Joe Biden

[Taniasuteja]

abortion is a pure crime.....no exception and it is not a matter of choice.. God's Law is above human's law...how come you say OK when God says NO ? And then you claim to be Christians ?

[jmdnarri]

@Taniasuteja Please quote chapter and verse where abrotion is forbidden in the Bible. You have a problem whith people going against what "God says", but I bet I can find scripture that you do not abide and still call yourself Christian.

[Taniasuteja]

@jmdnarri In the 10 commandments, and one commandment says THOU SHALL NOT KILL.......

[jmdnarri]

@Taniasuteja So in the ten commandments, we are not supposed to kill, but God himself kills numerous thousands of people, over and over and over. Not only does God kill people himself (more than 400,000 according to the Bible) He orders "His Chosen People" to commit genocide against other tribes, not just kill their warriors but slaughter the women and children, and to be sure to kill the babies inside the pregnant women, (but to keep the virgins for themselves)

[zzzak123]

@jmdnarri

Funny how people like you assume to understand the intracacies of the Bible by taking selective quotes from it without understanding the overall message. Do you not understand that the New Testament follows, and undoes much of the morality of the old testament?

Let he who is perfect cast the first stone.

[jmdnarri]

@zzzak123 If God is what the Bible claims, then why does the All-Knowing, All-loving, All-powerful, Infalliable, and Perfect Creator have to go back and change what he originally stated was moral?

Sorry but to me it all makes sense that the Bible was written by uncivilized tribes, using the claim of "God's Will" to justify the ways of their barbaric culture. When civilization advanced they had to find an excuse to change ther laws.

[jmdnarri]

@Taniasuteja ..... So I guess its OK to kill as long as its ordered by God. Its even been ordered to kill fetuses.

So I guess any woman who wants an abortion can just say, God told her to do it???

[gardeeoh]

Biden is an idiot like his boss

[gardeeoh]

Biden is an idiot like his boss

[ArmorOfGodMinistries]

Common Catholic response. Biden and all other people who think this need to repent, Life begins at conception, period!! STOP KILLING BABIES!!

[hilaryhoe]

@ArmorOfGodMinistries

Brother, this is not a "common" Catholic response. It is the response of a Catholic who has decided to put himself ahead. The Catholic response is the same as yours. This is something all Christians - Catholic and Protestant - agree completely on.

Let's pray together and hope that all people of all faiths and walks (especially Catholics and Protestants) who believe otherwise will one day realise that killing innocent life is never acceptable.

God bless.

[flipperboy]

I think Biden should be excommunicated, it would be doing him a favor taking this crutch away from him and getting him to walk on his own

[Adriancito6669]

This is how you know embryos are not humans: you can freeze them, thaw them out, and they're still viable. Think about it!! Can you do that with a human? They are not babies. btw....god is the biggest abortionist of all time!!!!

[Paulina86]

Haha

[dumboldrats]

It's biological, Joey! You can bring in religion, but a baby is biological, not religious, and this from a guy who thinks he's smarter than anyone else. This argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Go and get drunk somewhere, Joey! But you're just as stupid sober as you are drunk, so there you have it!

[SuddenCatharsis]

I guess we can all just "choose" when life begins, because its just an opinion. In my opinion, it starts at 20. So I can go abort teenagers now.

[theZodiacDigital]

right, did you not hear what he said about fascism? re-watch this video and substitute "fascism" with "killing 20 year olds". thank you, come again.

[Hkepfer]

The man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything.

St. Thomas of Q?

St. Augustine said, the Pope has spoke the matter is settled.

Joe remember what you were taught, let your yes mean yes and your no mean no.

Lastly, you know only Judges are exempt from church teaching on any matter before them. Executives and legislators have to live out their faith as per church teachings.

Joe you are welcome to convert to The Episcopal Church and go by their rules on church teachings.

[KrunchyGoodness]

so what's ok for you might not be ok for me. great logic. basically there is no such thing as morality so what reason do you have to possess any?

[reuab90]

there is no debate!! abortion is wrong. So when he says there is a struggle in the church that is a lie like many other things he says. the Catholic Church has been very clear that abortion is wrong, and imorale. I am ashamed to be in the same religion as baby killer Pelosi, and baby killer Biden.

[zzzak123]

@reuab90

I'm proud to say that I belong to the same faith as you

[ILLWKU23]

Wow, Joe Biden and I actually agree on something!

[RonFella]

Joe - The Muslim faith believes women can be killed for going against the husband. According to your logic they should be able to make that "choice" right? What a freaking moron.

[spincrib]

you obviously don't understand what his argument is, he is saying that a lot of people need abortions for the sake of their well-being and he doesn't feel it fair to impose his religious belief on them. However your talking about killing another living breathing working member of society for a completely unjustifiable reason. I think you are the moron, not him and please refrain from using such ludicrous analogy's

[RonFella]

Please stop killing babies

[spincrib]

i will think about it

[bindasbolre]

@RonFella

abortion is not killing bitch

[evidenttruths]

the issue of when life begins couldn't be further from a matter of faith.. It's a matter of science, and science tells us that yes, life begins at conception.

the Church, Aquinas included, has always layed down principles which are to be applied to the world as it is discovered through science. For Biden to quote the Summa as a science text is nothing short of laughable.

[CJordan1936]

Few things in life are black and white. I seen opinions change. Daughters get pregnant by the "wrong" guy; sons get the "wrong" girl pregnant; or gets the "wrong" race pregnant. What I mean is I seen people change their opinion because of how it affects them personally Grandmothers raising one child of a drug addicted son or daughter facing the prospect of raising another. OR friends who been waiting to be grandparents for years whose daughter who don't want the baby.

[mathcernea]

I think the question, "Does life begin at conception?" is a loaded one which avoids the heart of the issue. The fertilized egg is a living cell, and as such is alive, just as a neuron is alive. But I don't believe that the fertilized egg has consciousness, since it has no brain. It's a cell; if you transplant its nucleus it can become a different kind of cell. I wouldn't equate aborting a newly fertilized egg with murder. Still, it's best avoided, perhaps unless it can save many lives.

[evidenttruths]

That works if we define a person by their consciousness, but thank God we don't do that in the courts here. Unfortunately, for cases such as Terri Schiavo, it didn't matter anyways whether or not she was "conscious."

The point is that, "Does life begin at conception?" isn't the question, not because its loaded or that life doesn't begin at conception, but rather because it's the wrong question.

Does a fetus' right to life supercede a woman's right over her body? --That is the question.

[mathcernea]

You do make some excellent points. It certainly is debatable whether, say, being brain-dead is equivalent to being actually dead. If a brain transplant were to be possible, for example, what would happen? And you've also convinced me that, politically, the real question is, "Does a fetus' right to life supercede a woman's right over her body?" But in practice this question is gradated by how conscious the fetus is, which is why Roe v Wade makes a cutoff at a certain time mark.

[evidenttruths]

I hadn't thought about the brain transplant scenario, so that's interesting.

But someone can in fact be conscious but not effectually "viable" which is where the cut off point is for Roe v Wade. As soon as the fetus could live outside of the uterus - I believe that is the point referred to by viability.

[mathcernea]

Oh, that's interesting..."viability". That makes a lot of sense. But that concept's rather suspect too... because if the fetus could live outside the uterus, couldn't they just surgically remove it to be outside the womb? And then it should live... I think a better way to decide the cutoff date is by when the brain develops.

[mathcernea]

I wonder if a better answer to this question would've been possible. Of course, his job as a politician is not to express his honest views, but to woo as many Republicans without putting off Democrats. The talk about the debate within the Catholic church was brilliant. Maybe if he had started with that and just said, "I don't know," it would've been best. In any case, I'm confident it's best that the Dems won this term, and even if the Reps had won, they wouldn't have overturned Roe v. Wade.

[1567Fud]

Biden, thank you. I love your opinion on the right to an abortion.

[indians4bobbyjindal]

He said he doesnt believe in public funding, but obama gives public funding to foreign countrys for abortion.

[gigags0212]

he has absolutley no idea what he is talking about

[harrylives89]

No idea? He sure articulated what he believed to me -- the teachings of his church and his personal beliefs against the views of other people and other faiths. Where's the confusion?

[Carolina1st]

Abortion back fired on the politicians.. In the beginning they thought this would be a great way to control the population growth of the poor... well,as it turns out, it was a means of birth control for the middle class... Its no doubt to me that when you can hear the heart beat of that baby, its a life! Bottom line to me is,It can never be a choice if its a life........

[jstephenj]

Why the fuck should it matter that it's used as birth control by the middle class? Being poor sucks! Are people supposed to forego sex altogether in order to appease the religious nutcases in this country? Fuck em! No one should feel obligated to tailor their lives around someone else's interpretation of the bible.

[cjpmiller]

The Bible doesn't belong in the conversation at all, in my opinion. The debate should hinge on what we consider the beginning of life. Is it birth? A viable fetus? A heartbeat? But remember not all abortion opponents are trying to impose a religious agenda--some of us, Polyanna though it may seem--truly want to defend from harm an innocent life.

[elevenbravoxviii]

Wow, it sounds like he agrees with himself and disagrees with himself.

[darpachief]

just like Obama....they sit on the fence on everything...while climbing to the throne. lol

[Breedoe]

Check out the Silent no more campaign.Women who have had abortions and it destroyed their lives.Brave women who are trying to reveal the real cost of abortion.

[marjoriejohansen]

How could Obama pick such an idiot for his VP?

[TheJediCharles]

"we're going to reduce the amount of abortions that take place..."

-Biden

Why? If it's okay, why worry about how many times it happens?

It's not wrong but it happens too much.

Go figure.

[laura489]

very interesting point. never thought of it that way.

[patrissimo]

You are not a Catholic Biden. You are either lying or are delusional. 100% fake Catholic like all pro-choice "Catholics. Biden - you are NOT prepared to accept the Church's teachings. If you're a Catholic then ACT LIKE IT and obey your bishops!

[billybobjoe2345678]

so Biden how can you vote pro-abortion when you believe that it's murder. because to think life begins at conception then vote for abortion rights' is saying you think abortions murder.

[upizdown]

i dont get it..this country is based on freedom of religion..that means u CANNOT force your beliefs on other people..so whether it's gay marriage or abortion..how can you tell someone what to do because of what YOUR RELIGION tells you? please can i get a straight answer

[patrissimo]

There are religions who support abortion too.

[TheJediCharles]

"There are religions who support abortion too."

So? There are Athiests who find abortion reprehensible.

A person's espoused system of belief tells us nothing about their character.

I personally find attaching religion to the discussion of abortion as a divirsionary tactic.  It's irrelevant.

[TheJediCharles]

".that means u CANNOT force your beliefs on other people"

That's all laws are, the enforcement of what the public believes is wrong. To claim we cannot make belief of wrong into law is to say there should be no law at all.

Religion is irrelevant as there are scores of those opposed to abortion who are athiests.

That's the reason I believe the numbers of those who support abortion are distorted because so much is animated by religiophobia, not because they really believe it's okay.

[rbekking]

Sorry, Biden's logic does not have a leg to stand on.

[rbekking]

First De-humanize, then kill. We have seen that pattern before (Jews, Blacks). The better defense (though wrong) is that it is human but we are allowed to kill it. Biden's logic does have a leg to stand on.

[rbekking]

Bidens position is not new. It is the stand htat life is dependent on your opinion. Biden decides that life begins at conception, it become so for him. Another decides life begins at birth, let it be so for them. The problem is we have put ourselves in Gods place. That is were he differs from the Church. The Church believes that life is an objective fact, not a subjective opinion.

[notwhationceknew]

I am of the opinion that you are not alive.

Therefore I can shoot you in the head without going to jail for it. After all, whether or not you are alive is just a difference of opinion is it not?

[1TomatoJuice1]

@notwhationceknew You perfectly well could, but know that most of the world disagrees with your opinion and WILL send you to jail. If most of the world was of the opinion that rbekking was not alive, they would be fine with it. This is a little something I like to call intellectual Darwinism, and right now its general consensus is that rbekking is quite alive indeed.

[angus247]

This was a terrific answer. I agree with Joe Biden 100%.

[AndrewWiggen12345]

"It's true for me...but it doesn't have to be true for you. I just don't want to force my opinions on you, even though you might believe something completely opposite of what I'm saying."

[PHUNNIBONE]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If Biden believes the words of the Declaration of Independence, how could he vote differently?

[xveebabyx]

The declaration if independence is not the Constitution. We don't use the declaration of independence because it is not the law of the land. So there is the answer to your question.

[gajamaman]

Abortion is not right but it cannot be criminalized.

A law should be formed carefully with checks and balances.

What if there is a complication in pregnancy and doctor tells that either the mom or the baby survives. What do you do? you get the baby to live then you kill the mom and vice-versa. You take a life one way or the other knowingly..

after all the govt or the people shouting is not going to suffer the consequence of having the baby or not having the baby and it is emotional.

[MrBlake14]

Life isn't a matter of faith Joe. If you truly believe life begins at conception, then you shouldn't stand idly by and allow the unborn to be killed. Because no matter how you want to beat around the bush, if you believe life begins at conception, then abortion is technically killing, if not murder. So how...does your logic make sense? It doesn't.

[MrBlake14]

Whoa...whoa...whoa...hold the phone.

"Life begins at conception" - Joe Biden

How can he then stand idly by, knowing that from this definition of when life begins (according to him, no less) abortion is killing a life. Isn't the Roman Catholic faith, let alone the Christian faith, all about helping the least, and the most helpless? Guess who, according to Biden, is the least, and most helpless? The unborn. Is he making an effort to defend them? Apparently not (for political correctness' sake).

[cros9rx]

He is separating church and state and, although in this particular instance by doing this it appears that he is contradicting himself, that ensures that every individual can interpret for himself or herself what is right and what is wrong and at the end of the day God will hold one individually accountable for his or her actions. Ask yourself this question: If America had a congress largely populated with Nazis would you want them to enforce Nazi ideals in the laws of the land?

[GrapevineTom]

Biden, has NO spine!

You have apparently decided to take the "easy" way out and this disturbs me. Your whole party disturbs me. It has turned into the party of the abortionists!

Joe's response is that of someone who will not cross the line and lose some votes for taking a stand for the unborn.

All that's missing here is a cane and top hat and a little music for Joe to dance to!

...and he calls himself a "Catholic!"

[BiraqObama]

DEMOCRAT: The once great party of the American working man. Now and since 1976 the party of blacks, queers and American communists. Goals, to ruin America and run it into the ground.

To be a Democrat is very unamerican

[kenwil32]

Someone mentioned democrats being pro-abortion; it's not pro-abortion. Why do Neo-Cons have such an extreme way of looking at thing that you disagree with? I'm against abortion but, I don't think the government should enforce a law based on religious doctrine. America is too large of a melting pot for such reasoning. After all, isn't things like this the reason settlers broke away and journeyed here??? Help me out, somebody.....

[patrissimo]

But there are religions which allow abortion. Is passing laws allowing abortion enforcing laws based on religion or is it that only Catholicism is really Religion and all others are pretenders?

[xyrtle]

Dear muezlkva--P. S. Biden HAS science. What he doesn't have is integrity or honor or the character to tell the truth because it will cost him the votes of his pro-abort party.

[xyrtle]

Right on, mueslkva! Catholic collaborators like Joe Biden will have plenty to answer for. How like the "good Germans" who separated their religious beliefs from state-sponsored genocide. And how come these separation of church/state people have no problem opposing the death penalty based on their "faith?" An interesting bit of hypocrasy, wouldn't you say?

[superal17]

First of all NO YOUR COMPLETELY WRONG BIDEN...THERE IS NO DEBATE IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, ABORTION IS SIMPLY WRONG!!! but anyway abortion isnt a matter of being faithful or not it is just matter of RIGHT and Wrong!! and killing unborn babies IS WRONG!!!

[muezlkva]

Biden - this isn't based on your "faith." How can 1 cell (fertilized from 2 separate cells), just "know" how to become one human being with personality, appearance, life span, inherent diseases, etc? This is a SCIENTIFIC FACT. Not a faith-based judgment. If people would learn some embryology, there's no way that you would not think of the fertilized egg as not being a human being. There is a beating heart by 5-6 weeks gestation. The brain tissue has been there since much earlier.

[Pooby43]

Well if my faith says that killing a baby before birth but other people think it is alright to kill children under one year of age as they are dependent on the parents. Well then do I have any right to impose my beliefs......lol So his argument is just silly.

[XarisGuitars]

"I know when it begins for me" -- What a load of crap. If it begins, then it begins.

[kate33324]

When Biden made this statement, the bishop of Scranton, PA, told the priests that if Biden came to Scranton and tried to receive Holy Communion, not to give it to him.

[pmm53]

How about honor killing Joe? That is in the muslim faith. What a piece of work. His deply held convictions go on and off as easy as a coat.

[xyrtle]

Certainly no debate by the 20th century and the advances of science, Joe! Who but you would go back to the Middle Ages for your ludicrous politically-correct tap dance?

[muezlkva]

Shows that Biden knows no science.

[Geekella]

what do u mean "attempt"? he answered the question simply: he is against abortion but voted FOR it because he understands that he has no right to push his own religious-based views onto others

[WIDeptofRevenue]

"Joe Biden Attempt to Explain His Abortion Position"

I was waiting for Biden to say something like "My position on abortion is with my feet up in the stirrups."

Abortion should be retroactive, because then we could lawfully get rid of Obama and his idiot followers.

[ZoeyK86]

I agree you ,SolideoGloriafella!

[307030157]

this video got my pusssssyyyy wweeeettttt!!!  c me on cam!

[corkeash]

this video reminds me of my videos!!1

[dipper145]

Your a devout christian, so you are obviously very religious. I see very little reason to continue arguing with you, as you are already close minded. Its a shame, but maybe someday you will come around.

The world will be waiting for you when that happens.

Until then, good bye.

[legopower77]

And another thing, Dipper, how consistent are you? Another of Biden's relegious views is income redistribution (what he calls "fair"). Are you ok with him on that view or will you oppose him because he seeks to impose his ideas of fairness and charity on us?

[XarisGuitars]

Oh my . . . Let's drop the dramatics, dipper

[SolideoGloriafella]

Since 3-18-03 (US invades Iraq) 4,200 US Armed Forces personnell killed in action...

Since 3-18-03 (US invades Iraq) 7million abortions in America...

[SolideoGloriafella]

It doesnt take religion to see that murder is wrong.

Give them a chance.

Adoption gives children a chance....

Abortion given the children no chance at all

[SolideoGloriafella]

Is murder a religious view?

[dipper145]

I think Joe Binden spoke very well here.

Clearly he has his own views, but he also recognizes that he can't just force his own views on other people(Some people here clearly don't know that). He recognizes that it is up to each individual person weather or not they choose to have an abortion.

Criminilizing abortion would obviously be terrible. It would probably just result in a lot of poorer people living off government funding. That and/or a bunch of mistreated/malnourished babies.

[SolideoGloriafella]

Dipper145,

So we kill'em and never give them a chance at life?

Get real...

Someone gave you a chance...

[dipper145]

Solideo,

No. We just don't force our own views on other people, it is clearly a personal choice up to each individual. Most people have different religions and have different views of things.

With your view you wouldn't have an abortion if you were a 13 year old girl who got pregnant, and had no family to help you, that is your personal choice to make.

"Get real" and quit forcing your own personal and religious views of things on other people.

[legopower77]

Dipper, what about you forcing your views on people? The baby dies because of your views. There is no scientific argument that it is not a living being with its own unique genetic code. It's not just part of the body, it's it's own seperate body.

For all your talk about close-mindedness, will you do one thing? Check old biology books from before abortion became an issue and see that NONE of them said the fetus was not a life.

[SolideoGloriafella]

Why is abortion a "private issue" when public tax dollars fund it...

$300 million/year in tax dollars to Planned Parenthood.

Hows someone going to make abortion a private issue between a mother and her doctor - while theyre using US tax dollars. PUBLIC issue and tax payers have a say.

[JohnnyDizm]

I didn't mean to ramble on and the thought could be called nihilistic, but your example was just silly. Acorns are made of pig sh*t and pig sh*t's full of acorns. And I'm just chock full of oak-smoked bacon.

[JohnnyDizm]

You may see my point coming now, suffice to say: averything can be replicated perfectly conceivably and almost practically. Substance is a myth, I can rebuild you. Give me a workbench and I'll make you out of ground up acorns, or oaks, or suns. Your runny subconcious will have all the same quirks and perks, you'll be identical in every way. Your memories, thoughts, actions are all chemistry. Your mind is the ultimate example of retrophrenology. Your body is a passable example.

[JohnnyDizm]

I'm asking that you accept that the part exist, first off.

[JohnnyDizm]

Smaller than the little bubbles of cytoplasm in little cellulose packets. Smaller still than the nucleotides that build up its DNA, smaller still than the amino acids. Smaller again than the hydrogen ions clinging to said acid molecule. There is a component, be it a quark or something smaller (and I sincerely doubt it's stamped YHWH), that the acorn is "made" of. Is it entirely inconceivable that there is a tweezer small enough to pluck these parts and snap them together?

[JohnnyDizm]

Jim,your take on potential is fascinatingly flawed. I would accuse you of thinking too small, but you are in fact thinking too large. You'll have to pardon the pun, but you can't see the forest for the trees.

You must allow me once concession, I think you'll agree with me but take this premise: there is a component smaller than an acorn.

[admin1728]

How can you believe human life begins at conception and then vote to allow abortion? That is a contradictory position. It's like saying you believe slavery is immoral but then voting to allow it to exist.

[JohnnyDizm]

Joe Biden may just be too smart for America. Or too honest, His answer is the only right answer. Do not commit me to your fantasy, you can pretend that you know what you're talking about, but don't drag me over the edge and into the abyss when taking your leap of faith.

[robrepublic]

Substituate the word 'slavery' for 'abortion'-I personally don't own a slave, but have no issue with any one who does. Anyone stupid and evil enough to vote for this piece of crap need to have their voting privileges immediately suspended.

[baryshi]

That's not what he said at all. He said his FAITH tells him it's wrong but that as a person whose policy changes affect everyone, it is not right for him to push his FAITH on others.

[robrepublic]

He is saying that he personally does not believe in slavery, but is not going to impose his beliefs on others by voting to outlaw the practice. What a poor excuse for a human being!

[baryshi]

This is not about slavery.

To use your own words with one small change:

He is saying that he personally does not believe in ABORTION, but is not going to impose his beliefs on others by voting to outlaw the practice.

It is easy to say someone is like Hitler and then say if you like them you like Hitler. This never was about slavery so let's at least try to keep this an honest conversation about an issue.

[robrepublic]

Substitute the word 'slavery' for 'abortion' and see how patently ridiculous Joe Biden is. He should be ashamed of his baby killing self.

[sara5893]

this man is full of crap. WE ALL pay for abortion though the government funded PLANNED PARENTHOOD. the largest abortion supplier around the world.

I am so sick of ppl using GOD to cover their own ass.

[UntamedAxeRage]

Biden's answer is perfect! It's about time we had someone in the white house who understands the importance of church-state separation.

[notwhationceknew]

So church-state separation means that any moral law that a church has should immediately be rejected by the state? Or are we just cherry-picking our personal favorites to reject?

If you take that approach to church-state separation, anarchy then would seem to be the most separated position from the church and therefore best form of government.

[UntamedAxeRage]

On this point, I agree with Barack Obama, who has said that "democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values."

As Biden points out, it is an article of faith that life begins at conception. (The word "life" is a bit of a misnomer, actually. It would be more accurate to say that it is an article of faith that moral and ethical status as a human being should be granted at conception).

[UntamedAxeRage]

...Until the opponents of abortion can make a secular, evidence-based argument for their belief in the equal moral status of an embryo and an adult human being, as opposed to an argument based on a belief in a soul or divine creation or any other parochial religious dogma, this belief will remain an article of religious faith and will therefore be outside the purview of the government.

[JimnyCrkt8]

I would like to hear a "secular, evidence-based argument" for your BELIEF that an embryo does not have equal moral status.

[UntamedAxeRage]

Easy: an embryo has an undeveloped, unsophisticated nervous system and therefore lacks the ability to experience pain and thus to suffer its own death.

It further lacks the conscious experience of an adult or even a child that would cause it to understand the consequences of the cessation of its life and to thus suffer in that regard either.

I'm not saying an embryo should not be considered to have any rights at all,,,

[UntamedAxeRage]

...But concern for an embryo should be outweighed by concern for a fully developed, fully conscious human being.

[JimnyCrkt8]

Let me see if I understand you correctly: according to your argument, rights are contingent upon one's capacity to experience suffering?

If this is accurate, then a person with the disease CIPA, which is a neurological disorder which causes an inability to feel pain, could be killed because he/she cannot feel it?

And if consciousness of the consequences of one's death is required for a right to life, then a person who is sleeping or one who is mentally handicapped can also be killed?

[UntamedAxeRage]

The ability to suffer should certainly factor into the equation, as should the ability to understand the implications of one's death. Another way to put it is to say that an embryo has less to lose as a result of it's death than grown human being because it has never had any conscious experience of the state of being alive and is therefore not giving it up.

This is the same logic by which we can say that the death of an animal has less moral weight than the death of a human being...

[UntamedAxeRage]

We do not experience the same moral outrage at the mass slaughter of chickens as we do at genocide because we can objectively say that the lives of chickens have less moral weight than the lives of human beings, and for exactly the same reasons. Chickens have no capicity to understand the consequences of their own death and, at least according to some neuroscientists, they lack the ability to experience pain in the same capacity as human beings....

[UntamedAxeRage]

Again, this is not an argument that embryos should not be granted any moral consideration whatsoever, any more than it is an argument that we should abolish animal cruelty laws.

My point is that considerations for an embryo should not be given equal weight to considerations for an adult human being...

[UntamedAxeRage]

All things being equal, it is obviously preferable to preserve all human life, but when the considerations for an embryo are weighed against the considerations for an adult, the adult's interests should come first.

[JimnyCrkt8]

I do not see how this is a sufficient answer to my questions posed earlier. First of all, you have not responded to the question of how consciousness can be a factor when all of us experience states of unconsciousness throughout our lives (namely sleep & an anesthetically induced unconsciousness, etc.) ... therefore, simply being unconscious cannot warrant a loss of one's right to life and right to have that life protected.

[JimnyCrkt8]

I agree with you that the killing of animals cannot be compared with that of human beings. But why is that so? Because human life has the capacity to reason, the capacity to reflect upon it's own thoughts, the capacity to choose one's actions based upon reflection and consideration, etc. These are all capacities within human nature that are distinct and set us apart from all other life on earth. Again, I agree with you that this does not mean we can treat animals willy-nilly either.

[JimnyCrkt8]

With these attributes of human life as set apart from animal life, this does indeed display its inherent dignity and value. Again, on this we agree. However, an animal can never acquire these attributes ever. It is simply not within their nature to ever achieve this capacity to reason. Whereas, the embryo is TOTALLY different from an animal in that it is human and it has the capacity for reason, self-reflection, etc. ... the attributes are simply in a state of potentiality.

[JimnyCrkt8]

Just as the embryo is fully human and possesses all of the attributes and capacities of any other human being either fully activated or in potentiality, there are many "adults" who are in the same state ... only possess some of these attributes in potentiality (either due to unconsciousness, mental handicap or illness, temporary coma, etc.) ... so can any human life be terminated simply because all of its attributes are not fully activated?

[JimnyCrkt8]

And if it is simply a matter of life experience, at what point does one have enough "experience" for their life to be protected? Who has the authority to determine when someone has "enough to lose" to warrant being protected? Doesn't this effectively boil down to some human lives are more valuable than others?

[UntamedAxeRage]

To respond to your final point first: yes, I absolutely do believe that some human lives are more valuable than others and I further believe that, when put in the unenviable position of making life and death decisions, one must be able to weigh one life against another on the basis of many different criteria including, as in this case, the question of the amount of suffering involved.

[UntamedAxeRage]

Second, regarding consciousness, I think you misunderstood my point.

I was not referring to the particular state of either consciousness or unconsciousness at the specific time of death, but rather to the fact that embryos have never had any conscious experience of what it is like to be alive ever, at all.

Thus, embryos are not capable of experiencing the psychological trauma of the cessation of their existence in the same manner as fully developed human beings...

[UntamedAxeRage]

Coupled with the fact that embryos are neurologically incapable of experiencing physical pain as well, I think it is safe to say that embryos do not suffer their own death in any way whatsoever.

Next, on the question of potential: I think you contradict yourself in saying that human embryos have the capacity for reason and self-reflection but then following this assertion with the statement that these capacities exist only in potentia...

[UntamedAxeRage]

...Sorry, but this just doesn't make any sense to me. Either these capacities are present in an embryo or they aren't. An acorn is not an oak tree, a caterpillar is not a butterfly and an embryo is not a human being.

That being said, I do believe that the limitation of an embryo's potential is a valid moral consideration to take into account and I would probably consider it to be the only compelling argument against abortion that does not fall back on religious faith...

[UntamedAxeRage]

...But, if we bring the question of limiting potential into the equation we must then ask, what the limitations put on a woman by forcing her to raise an unwanted child? What about the limitations put on society by exponential population growth? What about the limitations to the advancement of medicine caused by the restriction of stem-cell research?

In all these cases, both the degree of suffering and the limitation of potential involved would be far worse if abortion were outlawed.

[JimnyCrkt8]

First, my use of the word "potential" is not as you are understanding it. This is a philosophical term which is used to describe the process of change that is possible in an object.

When speaking of a thing (animate or inanimate), how can it remain one thing, one person throughout time and undergo change? There must be something within me, some underlying substance, that remains constant or I would be an entirely new being with each change.

[JimnyCrkt8]

It is a scientific fact that our cells have a limited lifespan and then are shed from our bodies upon their death. Thus, with the exception of some brain cells, almost all the cells in a human body are replaced with new cells every two years.

What then remains constant throughout this process is my essence or substance. And because of its definition as that which remains throughout change, that substance must be present from the very beginning of my existence.

[JimnyCrkt8]

An acorn is not an oak tree, but it is never going to become anything else but an oak tree, thus there must already be present within the acorn the substance of the oak tree ... the attributes of the oak tree simply lie in "potentiality".

[JimnyCrkt8]

Second, our nation and our laws are not based on this idea that one human life has more value than another. The Declrtn of Indpndnce states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." This idea that one life is more valuable than another has led to the demise of many a nation throughout history ... Nazi Germany just to name one.

[JimnyCrkt8]

I did not misunderstand your point about consciousness, I was simply drawing it to its logical conclusion. Your original argument was an attempt to define a moral agent. You claimed that one quality that makes something a moral agent is consciousness. I was pointing out that this quality is not a constant even in those that you would identify as a moral agent and thus, is a flawed argument.

[JimnyCrkt8]

Suffering, while a difficult part of human experience, is not in essence what makes us human. Plus, degree of suffering is a completely subjective determination ... who can judge whose suffering is worse? No one!

Regarding your topics with regard to potential, I am not going to address them in connection with this discussion of whether or not an embryo is a moral agent and thus has a right to life ... because as I mentioned before, this wasn't the use of the word potential that I was using.

[JimnyCrkt8]

However, I do want to add that the arguments claiming that our world is threatened by over population are a myth! And you need to look into the medical advances that have resulted from adult stem cell research versus embryonic. Scientists have been able to reprogram adult stem cell to the extent that need for embryonic stem cells is unnecessary. In addition, stem cells can be taken from the blood left in the umbilical cord without posing any ethical challenges at all!

[JimnyCrkt8]

This can only lead one to conclude that the sole reason motivating this push for embryonic stem cells is sheer political motivation and agendas. The science does not support it!

[UntamedAxeRage]

The closest thing to the "substance" or "essence" that you speak of is called DNA: the coded set of instructions for building a human being (or an oak tree, or a butterfly, etc).

Are you really saying that the presence of human DNA is enough to grant moral agency?

How far back are you willing to extend this concept of "potentiality?" Am I to understand that, by your logic, the slaughter of animals is not morally equivalent to genocide, but that masturbation is?

[muezlkva]

That is B.S. The embryo is ALREADY ALIVE when it is an embryo. It was never "dead" or "unalive." What are those cells doing? They are busy reproducing to form a composite human being that already has predetermined attributes based on the DNA of the fertilized egg. Other than environmental factors, there is nothing else influencing the development of the embryo. Don't you savor your own life? What if your mother had killed you before you were born?

[UntamedAxeRage]

I repeat my question: are you, based on this line of reasoning, asserting that there is moral equivalency between masturbation and genocide?

If the answer is no, then you must recognize that there is an obvious difference between a cell or group of cells containing human DNA and a human being.

If the answer is yes, then you are seriously devaluing human life by suggesting that the suffering of a sentient being carries no more moral weight than the destruction of an unconscious cell.

[ComradeNu]

If my mom believed that she could not raise me, if i threatened her well-being, or even if she didn't WANT to raise me, I would NOT want to be born.

I don't know about you, I dont want to be raised by a person who didnt want me. And what the fuck would I care? I am basically a parasite until I'm born.

[kenwil32]

i agree with your stance but, DAMN, did you have to put it like that?

[cros9rx]

...but if she didn't want you and still had you then you would be a totally different person with totally different views and thus your current stance is rendered useless. Since your current stance is now proven useless, you should get an education that will allow you to be more of a free thinker (as opposed to a momma's boy/girl) who is capable of rational thought that (when unleashed upon the world) will enhance the lives of those around you. I pray you get will soon.

[gmcoleman]

Wait a minute! the murder of 2 years old IS legal. Drop a bomb in a war and every thing that got killed was fair game and legal.

All sin and fall short of the Glory of God or something like that. it's in the Bible check it out. I got enough sins of my own to worry about. I ain't got time to worry about Biden's sins.

[itsSlipK]

Best response I've ever heard! Very well said. And McCain says he wants less Gov't huh?

[notwhationceknew]

Yes, lets shrink the government by throwing out some other laws too. Perhaps the murder of 2-year-old children should be legal -- after all child-sacrifice is perfectly acceptable in some cultures.

What about spouse abuse? Think how much less government we could have if we weren't worried about prosecuting it.

Enforcing laws to protect citizen safety is a legitimate role of government.

[CindyKay39]

Well said Joe.

[kroms001]

Good for Joe, I am a Catholic that believes in seperation of church and state also... we don't live in a THEOCRACY people, but rather a democracy.

[notwhationceknew]

So rape should be legal. After all, it's just a stupid moral rule that some people may disagree with.

[itsSlipK]

That is not based upon religion. It's not right for someone to push their own religious views onto you and make it law. Did you even listen to his answer ? The Gov't has no right to tell me what to do with my body because it conflicts with their personal religious views.

[notwhationceknew]

Banning rape is not based on religion? How so?

The fact is that we always legislate morality. There is nothing else to legislate. The only question is which set of morality we'll end up choosing.

By the way, the taking of another human life is never just a question about one person's body and well being. Claiming that this is an issue of privacy completely begs the question about the origin of human life.

[homeschoolmommaof3]

It isnt your body. If you want cut scrape burn and throw YOUR body in the trash go ahead. It is wrong to do that to a baby inside a woman's womb. Besides the government can tell you not to sell your body for sex or fill it with drugs.

[kroms001]

What a tired argument, and an endless one. People with no God have morals don't they? You can have values and morals and rules without any dictation from religion or state. The clarification you should stress is RELIGIOUS MORALS - thus why there is a seperation from church and state, you want to live in a Theocracy, go move to Isreal or Iran - where religious reign dictates all.

Morality is a primal understanding of right and wrong - perhaps not even influenced by God. (Adam and Eve Eden).

[notwhationceknew]

If you want to understand post-modern thought, look in to Joe Biden's eyes as he attempts to explain how can be both a devout Roman Catholic and yet still vote for pro-abortion legislation. This explanation is post-modernism at its finest.