Posted on 09/22/2015 5:09:34 PM PDT by markomalley
Vice President Joe Biden believes that life begins at conception, according to a statement he made while inviting pro-lifers to join the Democratic party in conjunction with Pope Francis’s visit to the United States.
Biden maintained that the question of when life begins is a religious matter. “I’m prepared to accept that at the moment of conception there’s human life and being, but I’m not prepared to say that to other God-fearing [and] non-God-fearing people that have a different view,” he said during an interview published by America, a Jesuit-run outlet, on Monday.
“Abortion is always wrong,” Biden continued. “All the principles of my faith, [which] I make no excuse for attempting to live up to — I don’t all the time. But I’m not prepared to impose doctrine that I’m prepared to accept on the rest of [the country].”
The vice president’s stance puts him in the company of a long line of Roman Catholic Democrats, dating back to Mario Cuomo. The interview was published one day before Senate Democrats filibustered a ban on late-term abortions, legislation that derives much of its force from evidence that in utero fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks of gestation.
#share#It’s the latest bit of evidence that has Republicans increasingly confident in the empirical basis for their abortion views. “The science is settled. It’s not even a consensus, it is a unanimity, that human life begins at conception,” Florida senator Marco Rubio said on Fox News in May.
Dr. Maureen Condic, a professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of Utah, wrote a white paper in 2008 buttressing that position. “A neutral examination of the factual evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well defined ‘moment of conception,’ a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the zygote stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species — human beings,” Condic wrote.
The statement that “abortion is always wrong” puts Biden at odds with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), who has portrayed her support for abortion rights as an extension of her religious beliefs. “As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this,” Pelosi told reporters in 2013.
As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has said:
John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them
73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. "They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live" (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: "the midwives feared God" (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for "the endurance and faith of the saints" (Rev 13:10).
In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it"
Biden: “I promise never to let my conscience get in the way.”
By definition if joe believes that life begins at conception then he supports pure murder when he supports abortion.
He suborns murder.
It doesn’t matter if you know what is right, if you continue to do what is wrong. It just makes you more culpable.
Folks if republicans were adroit enough to use it, they would find that ALL the democrats make lying statements more conservative than the Tea Party or any evangelical. They do this to dupe the average American.
Translation: “I don’t actually have morals, but I like to pretend that I do.”
It is a scientific matter. There is no "consensus"?
great! I, too, am glad VP Biden is personally opposed to abortion. That’s a big step forward from, say, Pelosi!!!
I was going to post some of the same church teachings you’ve done so well, thanks. I think the next step will be for someone (who can) to ask Mr. Biden.. “okay, since you are personally opposed to abortion, what specific steps can you take or support to try to at least reduce the number of abortions or at least limit them to the ‘most compelling’ types of situations..” (however defined, not my purpose here).
In other words will Mr. Biden act on his principles, even if only in a limited sense or degree? Hopefully so. Or, are his principles mere words with no practical impact or consequence?
he just might be wiling to SOMRTHING, some partial step or measure, I hope someone can reach him an find out.
Best,
Lying coward. How can anyone who is convinced abortion is wrong turn around and say, “You know, whatever, go ahead and kill that innocent child.”
Dispicable.
You can’t have it both ways Plugs. Your not a Clinton or a Kennedy.
Ah .. but you ARE imposing doctrine. You are forcing all Americans to pay for abortions.
One word — PANDER.
I have to believe their is a special place in Hell for those who have supported abortion and the taking of so many innocent lives.
I’m nor unreligious, but it has always sort of annoyed me that abortion is framed as a religious issue.
It does not require an iota of religious faith to believe that a unique human being exists at the moment of conception; it is a scientific fact.
Yes. Nat Hentoff is an atheist from a Jewish background. He is a crusading civil libertarian and would be considered pretty far Left in most aspects. But he is also very pro-Life. Religion has nothing to do with it — he just recognizes that the topic is all about living baby humans and he opposes murdering them. Imagine that!
Indeed. No belief is necessary.
It's funny how the likes of Clueless Joe claim that "they don't want to impose their values on the rest of us" about this, but they have no trouble imposing ObamaCare or MullahKissing deals or "thou shalt bake a cake or go to prison" deals.
The sole reason these rights were deemed unalienable is that both are derived from the Creator--not from the mother or father, and not from government or judicial decision. What is "granted" by human decision also can, by implication, be withheld.
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them (life and liberty)," said Thomas Jefferson.
"The world is different now. . . and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address
That understanding underlies every other consideration embodied in our Declaration of Independence and every protection of our Constitution. It is the very basis of our rights to life and liberty, of laws to protect them, and it distinguishes ours from other forms of government.
When we fail to acknowledge that foundation of our liberty, then we risk liberty itself for future generations, for where does the right to choose who lives and who does not really end?
That is why the question is of vital importance in each election. Already, we have deprived millions of their Creator-endowed rights to life and liberty, and our nation must be weaker for their loss. We need leaders who understand the implications and potential consequences of departing from our founding principles.
In recent decades, technological advances have enabled us to observe the characteristics and actions of God's tiniest creations in the womb. Unlike previous generations who could not see, we have no excuse for imagining that these are mere blobs of tissue labeled "fetuses." In their early weeks, we now can see that they are living babies who will continue on to possess life and liberty if we do not "destroy" both. Indeed, they are simply smaller versions of ourselves.
At the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC on February 3, 1994, Mother Teresa stated: "And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"
Questions on the economy, taxes, threats from terrorists, health care--all are considerations at this election time. One, however, is basic to all others for me. Who will best protect the underlying premise of our Constitution--and the lives and liberties of millions yet unborn?
Promises are illusive and cheap. This voter will examine each candidate's previous voting record carefully on all issues, because past actions are the best predictors of future decisions.
Reckon he feels the same way about slavery?.....http://patriotpost.us/commentary/36767
what the hell are you doing trying to lead anything anywhere......THAT'S WHAT LEADERS DO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.