To Whom Joe Biden Bows

Townhall.com ^ | September 10, 2008 | Terence Jeffrey

[Kaslin]

Take a leap of faith. Assume Sen. Joe Biden is an intellectually rigorous man who never fails to act on his own convictions when he votes in the Senate -- and that he is especially careful in thinking things through when he votes on matters of life and death.

Now, try to entertain Joe Biden's logic -- on a matter of life and death.

"I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception," Biden said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "But that is my judgment."

Biden's implication is that it is equally plausible to conclude that life does not begin at conception and that this conclusion ought to command as much respect from rational people as the conclusion that life does begin at conception. For Biden -- if you take him at his word -- the question of when life begins is not determined by science but by religion. It is not only a multiple-choice question, but a question with multiple correct answers.

"It's a personal and private issue," he said. "For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths ... who have a different view. ... They believe in their faith, and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life (begins)."

Now, try applying Biden's reasoning to a mammal other than homo sapiens.

Try it with polar bears -- a species whose life is so highly valued by our political establishment that the Bush administration listed it as "threatened" even though its numbers have been increasing.

Let's say one religion says polar-bear life begins at conception; another, when the polar-bear fetus is viable; another, in the third trimester of polar-bear pregnancy; another, at polar-bear birth; and yet another, not even at birth -- if the polar-bear cub is disabled.

Of course, no organized movement is demanding a "right" to kill unborn polar bears, so no organized movement is promoting the propaganda that polar bear lives don't begin at conception, and so Biden does not have to be conflicted about whether to act on his own convictions about polar bears or someone else's. On "Meet the Press," Tom Brokaw -- in a half-hearted way -- challenged Biden on the contradiction between his affirmation that life begins at conception and his pro-abortion voting record.

"But if you, you believe that life begins at conception," said Brokaw, "and you've also voted for abortion rights --"

"No, what I voted (was) against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion. I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it's a moment of conception," said Biden. "But then again, I also don't support a lot of other things. I don't support public, public funding. I don't, because that flips the burden. That's then telling me I have to accept a different view."

But Biden has in fact voted to force taxpayers -- no matter what their religion -- to fund the deliberate killing of human embryos, who Biden acknowledges are human lives.

On July 18, 2006, and on April 11, 2007, he voted -- along with Republican presidential candidate John McCain -- for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. It ordered the Department of Health Human Services to "conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells ... derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics."

In other words, it said taxpayers who share Biden's understanding that life begins at conception must pay taxes to fund researchers who kill what Biden affirms are human beings. (The bill did not become law because President Bush vetoed it twice.)

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act had nothing to do with abortion. Biden needed to answer only two questions before voting on it: 1) should the government approve the deliberate killing of innocent human lives, and 2) should the government force taxpayers to pay for it.

Biden answered both questions: yes.

On July 25, 2006, Biden voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. It prohibited "knowingly transport(ing) a minor across a state line, with the intent that such minor obtain an abortion, and thereby in fact abridge() the right of a parent under a law requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision, in force in the state where the minor resides."

In other words, Biden protected the ability of a stranger to sneak a teenager across state lines to have an abortionist kill her unborn child, even if the teenager and her parents, like Biden, affirm that life begins at conception and even if they belong to a religion that teaches abortion is murder.

When it came to these issues of life and death, Joe Biden would not have forced Americans to bow down to his convictions, he would have forced them to bow down to someone else's.

[Christian4Bush]

mark

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"But Biden has in fact voted to force taxpayers -- no matter what their religion -- to fund the deliberate killing of human embryos, who Biden acknowledges are human lives. "

Good point, Terry!

And that should be unconstitutional.

If it's wrong to force anti-abortion views, as he argues, by some application of separation of faith and politics, why isn't it wrong to force pro-abortion views on all Americans?

[pgkdan]

Take a leap of faith. Assume Sen. Joe Biden is an intellectually rigorous man who never fails to act on his own convictions when he votes in the Senate -- and that he is especially careful in thinking things through when he votes on matters of life and death.

Nobody can leap that far!!

[Don Corleone]

"I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception,

But he supports "Stem Cell Research". Which is it Joe? Is it alive or not? Is it murder or just special interest politics?

[Rummyfan]

Take a leap of faith. Assume Sen. Joe Biden is an intellectually rigorous man who never fails to act on his own convictions when he votes in the Senate...

No one could make such a leap of faith - not even Bob Beamon! - and there is nothing in Biden's Senate history to suggest that this indeed is the case.

[snoringbear]

“Take a leap of faith. Assume Sen. Joe Biden is an intellectually rigorous man”

Assuming that Biden is intellectually rigorous would not only be a leap of faith, it would also be a leap of the facts. Let's not forget that Biden was found guilty of cribbing while in college and then while a senator, a few years back was caught in a lie during a press interview about his college GPA which he had to rescind afterward...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I thought Obama Bin Biden bows to Mecca every day...

[Salvation]

Our Lady's Warriors.Dissent>Speakers and Authors

Abortion and Euthanasia
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE)	Catholic politician who votes for abortion in contradiction to Church teachings. One of American Life League's "Deadly Dozen."

[Salvation]

Running list as of the 9th on Bishops speaking out against Pelosi --- also applies to Biden.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Updated: American Bishops who have spoken against Pelosi

Here is the complete list of American bishops who have responded to Nancy Pelosi's comments so far:

1. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver was the first American bishop to respond
2. ... Bishop James Conley, his auxiliary, joined him
3. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington DC responded twice, first in a press release and second in a statement to The Hill. He has also appeared on Fox News, I am told.
4. Cardinal Justin Regali of Philadelphia, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, issued this statement through the USCCB website...
5. ... Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, chairman of the Committee on Doctrine, joined him
6. Cardinal Edward Egan of New York publised a strongly worded statement of his own
7. Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo issued a letter correcting Pelosi's claims
8. Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh and...
9. ... Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs have chimed-in
10. Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio, CNA reports has added his voice ...
11. ... Bishop Oscar Cantu, his auxiliary bishop, has joined him
12. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville has published an extensive letter
13. Bishop Edward Slatter of Tulsa adds himself to the list
14. Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas has joined the USCCB's efforts
15. Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin is on-board
16. Bishop James Slattery of Tulsa has a detailed response
17. Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston mentions the USCCB on his blog
18. Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando has written at length
19. Archbishop John Nienstedt of Saint Paul/Minneapolis challenges Pelosi's statement
20. Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, President of the US Bishops, has weighed-in
21. Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, OR publishes in the Catholic Sentinel
22. Bishop Jerome Listecki of La Crosse, WI responds in a word document
23. Bishop Richard Lennon of Cleveland, OH will comment in his September 5th column (PDF)
24. Bishop Ralph Nickless of Sioux City, IA has one of the very best responses I've read
25. Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco has invited Pelosi to a "conversation"
26. Bishop Glen Provost, LA: "Catholic Church clear on when human life begins"

{Last updated on September 9th.}

Note: #23 has been removed. Bishop Joseph Gossman of Raleigh, NC is actually the bishop emeritus, and the new bishop, Michael Burbidge has not, to my knowledge, made a personal statement.