Apparently, Sen. Obama and the LDS Church share the same view on when life begins: They don’t know.
From this weekend’s Saddleback Forum, the Rev. Rick Warren asked Sen. Obama:
Q. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?
A. Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.
However, Sen. Obama’s attempt to side-step an issue that many Americans take very seriously didn’t work. (Note how he short-circuited the intent of the question by draining it of politics and converting it into a religious and scientific issue?) Obama then cut off any follow-up with the perfunctory recognition that “there is a moral and ethical content to this issue” (thanks!) and went on to expound the typical pro-choice line.
Despite the Senator’s glib response, the Mormon Church has actually expressed a similar non-view on when life begins for the unborn child:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no official position on the moment that human life begins.
Although, I am more comfortable with Sen. McCain’s view that life begins at conception, it’s a matter of fact that our limited knowledge prevents us from saying for sure when life begins in the womb. But that uncertainty should make our approach to abortion all the more definite.
In light of the unknown beginnings of life, a logical and morally serious approach to abortion should limit it to all but the most extreme of circumstances. Despite some claims that is is “pro-choice,” LDS Church policy forbids “elective abortion for personal or social convenience.”
Sen. Obama pretends to defer to God, but as a state and U.S. Senator he has demonstrated that he either has definite views on when life begins or that he simply doesn’t care. He has a record of consistently opposing any restrictions on abortion, including defeating a bill that would have required medical attention for infants born alive during an abortion. Either way, he certainly doesn’t want to talk about it and yet, he has no qualms implementing policies that show a complete disregard for unborn life.
Rev. Warren clearly wanted to follow-up on this issue. Afterwards, he best summarized Obama’s apparent lack of curiosity and with more charity.
I think he needed to be more specific on that. I happen to disagree with Barack on that. Like I said, he’s a friend.
But to me, I would not want to die and get before God one day and go, ‘Oh, sorry, I didn’t take the time to figure out’ because if I was wrong then it had severe implications to my leadership if I had the ability to do something about it.
He should either say, ‘No scientifically, I do not believe it’s a human being until X’ or whatever it is or to say, ‘Yes, I believe it is a human being at X point,’ whether it’s conception or anything else. But to just say ‘I don’t know’ on the most divisive issue in America is not a clear enough answer for me.
P.S. Note that Sen. Obama was incorrect when he repeated the canard that abortions have gone up during the Bush administration:
Obama wrongly claimed that abortions “have not gone down” under President Bush. In fact, the abortion rate has gone down 9 percent, and the annual total has declined by more than 100,000.
(Possibly) Related posts:
Tags: abortion, Barack Obama, mormon church policy
-
If the church has no official stance on it, and the scientific community has no official stance on it, then how in the heck is Senator Obama supposed to have an opinion? If people who spend their lives on these things cannot give a definite answer, then perhaps we should cut the career politician some slack.
-
David,
If the Prophet does not know when life begins for a fetus, then any speculation that we may put forward is just that. Why would you expect Mr. Obama to venture a guess? Without further light and knowledge from above, everyone is merely guessing. Why discount someone for stating the exact same thing the Prophet would say?
Do you believe that Mr. Warren or anyone else has the answer before the Prophet?
-
I was just about to say what Cory and Michael just said. It is unreasonable and, given the church’s lack of forthrightness on the issue, unjust to expect such a hard line from a politician.
I’d rather not have the government dictate every moral and ethical issue in the land, especially one that so many people on both sides feel so passionate about.
-
See! Even your own brother Jed is in agreement! LOL!
-
Michael,
So in the absence of knowledge, is your philosophy to just proceed blindly?
If you don’t *know* where the edge of the cliff lies, is it really prudent to just run around blindly?
To start from the premise that “we don’t know the details” and conclude that “we should therefore be accepting of any position” is just silly.
What is the “safe” (spiritually speaking) position on this issue? What position would keep you farthest from potentially falling off that cliff of sin? Why (other than the butterflies in the stomach we get from looking down at the rocks below) would we want to spend any time near the edge?
-
“He has a record of consistently opposing any restrictions on abortion, including defeating a bill that would have required medical attention for infants born alive during an abortion.”
Couldn’t he just believe that such specific regulation of the practice of medicine should be a matter of state, not federal law? kind of like the “conservatives” used to say?
-
Perhaps this is a good illustration of why the abortion debate has been so polarizing and unending, but it seems like most commenters missed my point.
Obama is, of course, free to have whatever views on abortion that he wants. I just found it interesting that he purports to have the same non-view as the Church. But with that same view he has a completely different approach of how abortion should be applied.
The Church’s reasonable approach is to err on the side a life, but Obama’s legislative record shows he’s full speed ahead in the other direction with reckless abandon.
If you are driving at night and see a shadow cross your path ahead, do you hit the brakes or the pedal? It’s probably just trash but what if there’s a slight chance it’s a person?
I don’t expect the Senator to share views with the LDS Church but since he wants to be president he HAS to make tough decisions and with ones like abortion he already has time and time again. He just wants to pretend he doesn’t have to explain them.
-
Thanks for the follow-up, David. I’d like to believe that I was the exception to the “most commenters missed my point”.
I think that I completely understood your original point — and agree that while the words used to describe a similar limited understanding relative to the will of God are similar, Obama’s chosen course of action (with regard to policy and legislation) resulting from that limited understanding could hardly be more diametrically opposed (and consistently so) to that of the church.
In the follow-up, Rev. Warren seems to be making a strong case **against** assuming that this is just another one of those little decisions for which it’s easier to get forgiveness than to get permission. :-/
-
JrL,
The “Born Alive” law that he opposed was a State law which he fought against as a member of the State Legislature. A similar law was passed at the federal level with overwhelming support of both Democrats and Republicans. Senator Obama is far to the left on abortion and this vote of his shows he values abortion rights more than the rights of fully born children.
To those that claim the church does not have a position on abortion, that is incorrect. It is true that they have not taken a political position, but they have definitely taken a moral one:
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.” (followed by the limited excceptions).
-
I don’t think anyone claimed that the church has taken no position on abortion. That’s the relatively easy question.
The original question in this thread (about which the church has *not* made a definitive statement) is when life begins for the unborn child.
-
Fair enough, I must have misread the comments.
Having said that, I’ll second the thought mentioned by others that it’s best to err on the side of caution.
-
One thing that the discussion seems to be missing is a recognition that governmental oversight need not follow moral correctness exactly. It is entirely acceptable (as i see it, at least) for governmental regulation or oversight to not match what is actually correct overall, but still be correct in terms of being governmental policy.
-
David B –
Do you have a more concrete example of what you’re describing here? So far, I’m not buying it…
To continue with the cliff analogy (overused, I know, but somewhat helpful visually), are you saying that although it’s okay for the government to be erecting guardrails that protect the public, it doesn’t really matter how close to the edge the guardrail is placed? Would it matter if it were placed a bit *beyond* the edge, then?
-
Obama once said (when he was honestly running to the left instead of pretending to run to the center), when questioned about abortion,that if either of his daughters had an unwanted pregnancy he wouldn’t want to punish them with a baby . So, it’s obvious he doesn’t value all life, only certain lives at certain times.
IF I was an Obama supporter I would be troubled by one of two things. First, everyone knows he’s pro choice. So lets hope he doesn’t think life begins at conception because if his did then he basically believes in murder. Second, everyone knows he’s pro choice so why wasn’t he willing to stand up for what he believes in. That is definitely the kind of change America needs, a politician with no apparent moral compass!
-
Taylor challenged me on my idea that governmental regulations shouldn’t necessarily be expected to match up with moral correctness. Well, not exactly proof, but there is the LDS Church’s own statement (which I’ll be mentioning on my own blog sometime as the US election gets nearer), which reads in part:
“Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent.”
(From the end of http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/political-neutrality)
As i read this, it’s the desires of the constituencies of elected representatives that the church says should determine governmental policy (in democracies, at least), not necessarily correct moral positions.
-
David B -
I think I see were you’re coming from, though I suppose I’m not ready to let you (or our elected officials) off the hook that easily…
It kinda sounds like you’re saying that the elected official’s FIRST responsibility is to his/her constituency, and not to his/her conscience.
“I have to vote for that bill because that’s what the majority of people in my district want.”
The cynic in me looks at that statement as an invitation to excuse any vote by an elected official as long as their constituency “asked for it”. This line of reasoning has certainly been used extensively in recent years as Congress has handed out mountains of “pork” to people that certainly are “asking for it.”
This line of reasoning also seems to assign an irrationally high priority to doing things (legislatively speaking) that will get a politician reelected. I would be very cautious about saying that this is what the church is telling elected officials to do.
In our representative republic (we do not have a national democracy, of course, nor should we) we elect people who we think will do a good job making decisions that we support. We do not have a “democratic” (democracy, the concept, of course) say in each bill that comes before Congress, but rather, we have a say in electing our “republican” (little R, being a part of our republic) representatives.
We can (and do) certainly lobby those representatives and try to influence their thinking, but we universally seem to detest politicians who “live and die by the poll numbers.”
No, we (pretty universally, I think) expect our representatives to have a brain and a conscience and use both effectively. They are not elected to be a poll-taker, but rather elected because we think that their judgment is wise enough to prudently balance our individual interests against the interests of city and/or district and/or state and/or nation.
The key phrase that I think you skipped over in the counsel from the church was, “these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment”. (…with the period *outside* the quotes on purpose, for those of you who care about that.)
I don’t find it insignificant that the church would list “based on their own judgment” as a rationale for decision-making before “consideration of the[ir] constituencies”. In fact, to my thinking, it sounds more like a recommendation that we all listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit than license to ignore them.
…and the Spirit will *always* advocate correct moral positions.
From that perspective, I would *fully* expect that over time, legislation would tend to line up with moral correctness.
-
Oh please! The “righteous” McCain darling of the hypocritical republican party of liars. He who was formerly an adulterer and womanizer and more liberal on abortion now sees the light as he allies himself with the Mormon hating neo fascist so called Christian/Evangelical coalition.
I think Obama’s answer was correct and in line with our Church doctrine. No one knows when life begins.
If all abortions are outlawed, the rich will simply go somewhere where they can get it done.
People in the Church please get over your pro-republican bias. That party is NOT synonymous with the Gospel. They are hypocritesposing as upholders of morality.
I was once of that crod but my eyes have been opened
-
“As i read this, it’s the desires of the constituencies of elected representatives that the church says should determine governmental policy (in democracies, at least), not necessarily correct moral positions.”
That is just the procedure behind democracy, that does not mean that every choice that a society makes is equally good, nor does it mean that there will be no consequences when a society has gone too far astray. Keep in mind:
(Mosiah 29:26-27)
26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.To put it another way, it’s in your best interest to work to ensure that your society does not choose iniquity.
-
Andy –
I was very careful to keep political affiliation out of my answer by clarifying that my usage of the words “republican” and “democratic” were NOT references to the political parties themselves, but rather references to the underlying principles from which the political parties happen to have drawn their names. I hesitated to add those words, thinking that someone might misunderstand. I’m sorry I was not clear enough about that for you.
All political bias aside (at least from me):
“The point at which human LIFE begins” is an abstract question, the answer to which has been neither scientifically determined nor divinely revealed.
“[The point at which] a baby get human rights” (the question asked of Obama) is a practical question well within the ability of reasonable humans to interpret, and certainly a question about which any politician (of any political flavor) aspiring to guide public policy in this area should have already come to some important conclusions.
Again, as the original post from David (Sundwall) states, it is troubling that Obama appears to be *talking* like he’s not yet made up his mind, but *voting* in a manner that leans heavily toward giving fetuses and even babies human rights at a *very* late stage.
..and yes, that kind of hypocrisy *from any source* is troubling.
-
Jed is now my favorite Sundwall. And there is a good bit of competition.
-
Three thoughts:
1. People who go on about how the US has a republican form of government in response to people saying the US is a democracy are completely ignoring the fact that “democracy” in the US (and elsewhere) has a colloquial meaning of “republican”. It’s especially annoying when it takes the form of a lecture. Get over it–it’s possible to be absolutely correct on the terminology, but still be making a distinction without a difference.
2. I see the church’s statement on political neutrality as tying in quite directly to Mosiah 29:26-27, actually–basically, the people are allowed enough rope to hang themselves. The interesting thing is that the church doesn’t seem to see it as elected representatives’ job to keep the people from doing so.
3. I don’t disagree with the claim that “the Spirit will *always* advocate correct moral positions”, but i do disagree with the implication that that means that the Spirit will always tell elected representatives to vote in a way that consistently supports morally correct positions. (See point #2, above.)
And finally, a general thought on the original topic of this thread: I expect hypocrisy from my politicians. Maybe it’s the cynicism that comes of having grown up a political junkie in the DC metro area, but i don’t trust politicians who don’t show a little bit of hypocrisy. It’s *stupid* hypocrisy that bugs me, and i have to say that i really haven’t seen that from either Obama or McCain on the abortion issue.
-
David B,
I agree fully with point 1. It drive me nuts.
Where in the DC area? Me too, so I am curious.
-
In answer to Chris H, i was born and raised in Maryland, down in Charles County. We had a Waldorf mailing address, but lived closer to Bryantown.
-
Apologies to all for provoking the master of snarkiness.
Re: #1: I’m not usually one to prattle on about distinctions without differences. My bad. However, the expectation that politicians should exercise “their best judgment” (in addition to reflecting the will of a constituency) is still present, even if you remove that darn political lecture, right?
Re: #2: Interesting thought. My first reaction was, “Really? Are you not following California right now?” …but then as I thought more about that one, I remembered that Prop 8 is a ballot initiative — conceptually much closer to “handing people their own rope” than “choosing someone to string us all up.” In the end, though, (sorry to be pedantic) I think it’s tough to make a case that the church really doesn’t expect representatives to exercise good judgment.
Re: #3: Certainly nobody said they had to sit still and listen.
So… If someone is “beyond feeling” and not paying any attention to the Spirit, is the Spirit still talking? Maybe this is a topic for your latterdaysnark blog. Maybe its just a comment on your 8/4/08 post about “The Power of the Spirit”. (I’ve always thought that was a kinda silly limitation, BTW.)Re: expecting hypocrisy: Sad, but true. Still troubling, but par for the course, I suppose. To be honest, both of these guys drive me nuts at times. (Though I’ll probably end up voting for one of them.)
On a vaguely related tangent, the “flip-flopper” label can drive me nuts too. I can muster some serious respect for people who have taken the time to study an issue and are humble enough to honestly arrive at a conclusion different from their initial assumptions. (…and then defend the new conclusion eloquently.) *That* takes some character, regardless of the political “direction” of the change.
-
I’m glad I came back to read these comments. What a great discussion! I’m glad to see that calling people out on “flip-flopping” is losing its effectiveness. Chris H. seems particularly insightful as well.
I’m fascinated that pro-choice beliefs and policies are so often equated with “reckless abandon” and “blindness.” It’s as though a pro-choice person is somehow “pro-abortion,” and Obama is encouraging and promoting abortions across the land. That’s not true!
It’s characterizations like this that make me hesitate to call myself pro-choice, but I’m too much of a libertarian (I also hesitate to call myself a libertarian) to want the government make this decision on behalf of so many people. Does that make me pro-choice? Can’t I just be pro civil liberty?
I’m leery of demanding a hard line against abortion because, while I’m personally disgusted by “abortion for personal or social convenience,” I have no way of empathizing with a victim of rape or incest, let alone any pregnant woman.
Obama’s position could be perceived as a hearty and confident “I don’t know. I (clearly) defer to my constituents to make their own choices. I see no reason to criminalize a medical procedure that could be life saving in certain circumstances.” I believe it takes guts and integrity to refuse to take a hard line when there is no clear answer.
I could quote a Rush song at this point, but I’ll quote Learned Hand instead: “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women.”
It is ok for an executive to not know something! It’s especially ok (in my mind) for an executive to admit he does not know something and defer to his constituents.
-
Jed,
Rather than calling pro-choice people pro-abortion, I think it’s more accurate to call them “anti-unborn-child-rights”. Because that is really what it comes down to, do unborn children deserve some degree of rights or not? If they do, then why shouldn’t the state provide protection to such vulnerable individuals? Instead pro-choice politicians like Obama are unwilling to afford any rights in these cases, providing no degree of protection to developing humans.
“I have no way of empathizing with a victim of rape or incest, let alone any pregnant woman.”
To put it another way, you don’t have a conflict of interest in the matter. Abortion is a controversy involving competing rights: The right of the woman to control her own body, and the right of the unborn child to develop and survive. The fact that you don’t have a personal right at stake in the controversy, along with all other males, gives you a better chance of being objective and fairly weighing between the two parties.
-
Thanks for the more in-depth description of your stance, Jed. It’s good to know that we’re not so far apart, in the end.
I recognize that there are folks like you (and me, honestly) who are genuinely in the middle — understanding (either intellectually or through sad experience) that there are circumstances where an abortion may be genuinely necessary.
Like you, I struggle with associating myself with *either* end of this debate. Major segments of the militant “pro-life” crowd seem frighteningly naive to me. I’m also quite leery of letting the militant wing of the “pro-life” gang have their way with this issue.
My feel is that the societal equation of “pro-choice” politics with “reckless abandon” stems from the almost militant defense of unfettered sexuality that comes from the most vocal defenders of the “pro-choice” position.
*I’m* fascinated by the ferocity with which a lot of folks on the pro-choice side (not suggesting you, or even Obama) will jump down my throat when I even *suggest* that this message might not be acceptable for government schools to be teaching to my children.
It’s really tough for me to understand how broad-based public funding of organizations that *do* actively encourage abortions of convenience as a perfectly acceptable method of birth control is a beneficial thing for our society.
Seriously, is it really in the best interest of our society to have the local state university include a sexuality lecture as part of their mandatory freshman orientation, complete with free condoms and a preemptive referral to the local Planned Parenthood clinic “in case you get in trouble?” I really can’t align myself with the side of the debate that does *not* see this as “encouraging and promoting abortions.”
Granted, Obama is not teaching the freshman orientation course, but honestly, what message do you think people (including my children) took from his statement about his own daughters? If he as a father would not want his own daughters to be “punished with a baby” if “they make a mistake” (which in my mind would never imply rape, incest, or a threat to their health), then what does that say about his thoughts on the matter, when the rubber hits the road?
…and in an attempt to circle back to the original post, how does that possibly reconcile with the latest “Shucks, I just don’t know” at Saddleback?
It’s discouraging to me that our society has conflated “pro-choice” with “permissiveness free of consequences”, but that’s the sad truth. The militant wing driving the “pro-choice” position certainly doesn’t seem anxious to talk about the downsides — and stridently shouts down any cautionary word from those of us who might actually know a little something about this.
Personally, I really don’t want to criminalize a tragic thing like abortion. But in my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, it’s becoming increasingly hard to even raise a cautionary voice (one way or the other) without being immediately lumped in with the wackos.
-
Taylor, given the context of this discussion, I think the “baby=punishment” line is the most damning (literally and politically
) comment a candidate could possibly make. It’s precisely that selfish, cowardly, shallow and cavalier attitude toward human life that keeps me from being all-out pro-choice. That said, I can understand his reasoning. It makes sense to me on a certain level, and I can’t judge Obama too harshly as a father for thinking it. I wouldn’t be surprised if such a thought crossed my mind if my teenage daughter were to get pregnant.
I think “I don’t know” is a much more charitable and honest answer. I think the problem with a lot of these debates is that they’re often posed as absolute dichotomies. You’re either anti-choice or anti-life or anti-unborn-child-rights or anti-family-rights. Carrying the debate out on those lines makes perfect political sense; it lends itself to slogans and soundbites, and it’s great for energizing bases, but it polarizes us and clouds our ability to see each other clearly. Before you know it, as you point out, we can’t lean on either side of the issue without risking falling into a pit of “crazies.”
This issue is far too complicated and nuanced for me to reduce it to a binary. A lamp can be turned on or off, but what if it’s not plugged in? What then? Is it on, or is it off?
I’d rather avoid hanging legal hammers over people’s heads and let the doctors, mothers, and families of the country decide for themselves how they want to approach this issue as it affects them.
Thank you also, Taylor, for expanding the context of the discussion, regarding the clearly pro-abortion factions, I admit that I’m largely unaware of them, and have never been particularly sensitive to them. However disturbing, it makes sense to me that such organizations would get public funding, as they’re ostensibly providing some kind of health care services. That they receive funding not only seems terribly insensitive but completely unfair, as the opposing, pro-life, side doesn’t have the benefit posturing as a public health organization.
And thank you, Aluwid, for engaging me. Your framing of the argument in terms of rights of the unborn child is very compelling. I choose not to decide right now, and I doubt this will this be a deciding factor in how I vote in November.
28 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://asoftanswer.com/2008/08/19/let-god-sort-them-out/trackback/