Probably most of us are familiar by now with Obama’s infamous (and cowardly) response—”answering that… is above my pay grade”—to the question, “At what point does a human baby get rights in your view?”
According to a recent story in the Associated Press (OK, not so recent; I just now got around to finishing this post, after starting it weeks ago), Joe Biden, in an attempt to walk the tight-rope of appeasing people on both sides of the abortion issue, made a nearly perfect invocation of what I will now call the “Biden Fallacy.”
Asked a similar question, Biden answered,
I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it mistakes a sufficient condition for a necessary condition. For many people, their faith is the guiding principle for why they oppose abortion. Their faith alone gives rise to their position on abortion, and for that reason it is a sufficient condition for a pro-life stance. But it is certainly not a necessary condition. One can have a pro-life stance for a number of different reasons.
Take Allen Atheist, for instance. Perhaps Allen is a microbiologist who opposes abortion because he is convinced from a scientific standpoint that life begins at conception. Or, perhaps Allen is a member of PETA, whose staunch animal rights activism has led him to the conclusion that human fetuses are also deserving of protection. Or, perhaps Allen is a member of the NAACP who, while not believing that life begins at conception, is disturbed by the disproportionate number of black children aborted, and sees the only solution as banning abortion altogether. Or, perhaps Allen is an environmentalist who believes that the world is undergoing massive, catastrophic cooling, and the only thing that can save the planet is billions of more people daily exhaling carbon dioxide. In other words, there can be any number of sufficient reasons for a person to oppose abortion. One need not derive his position from religion. It may be a sufficient condition, but it is by no means a necessary condition.
That is where Biden confuses the matter, either intentionally or unintentionally. Biden would have us think that simply because one can come to a pro-life position based on religious belief, one must have that religious belief to be pro-life. As though the only reason one would oppose abortion is out of religious committment, and as though, in order for government to protect unborn life, it would have to impose a religious viewpoint on others. Not quite, Joe.
October 7, 2008 at 8:20 am
When I was in high school, and the topic of abortion would come up, I would get this condescending look with a, “Oh, Rebecca. You see, you hold your position because you are from a religious family. Not everyone is as religious as you are…” I wish I would have understood their fallacy back then.
October 9, 2008 at 12:27 am
The thing I find most discomforting about Obama’s andwer, and similar answers by “pro-choice” individuals, is the logical conclusion of their philosophy of government.
They believe that the fetus may be a life, yet object to the government legislatively protecting it. How different is this from our government recognizing murder and making it illegal? Is this not the government’s role?
What about the school of philosophy that says life and reality is a dream? Reality only exists in the first person’s view. People are illusions. Reality is a dream. This person can then cite a similar “defense” of any murder.
Laws that protect fundamental things like life are left to the philosophical whims of the day. Government can give and take away rights. The founding fathers were brilliant in their recognition that we have inalienable rights granted by our Creator.
As for Obama, and many like minded democrats, the bottom line is that they support freedom unbridled and free from consequences, even responsibilities. Its an excuse. An irrational rationale. As you pointed out, very well I think, the arguments of these folks are illogical and break down.
October 9, 2008 at 1:40 am
Hi, Andrew. Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
It is no different. Pro-choicers often like to claim that, by restricting abortion, the government is imposing its viewpoint on others. But that argument could be raised against any law. Is the government imposing its viewpoint as to what is proper sexuality on the pedophile by restricting his right to sexually access minors? The answer is yes and no. Yes, it is imposing its viewpoint in that it is obligating him to conform his behavior to the law. But, at the same time, the pedophile is not forced to conform his viewpoint to that of the state. He is free to vehemently disagree, so long as he does not act upon it.
Yes, but, unfortunately, that is what got us Roe in the first place – i.e., a right to privacy found in “penumbras, formed from emanations” of the Bill of Rights (see Griswold v. Connecticut). When you start attempting to recognize unenumerated rights from natural law or other non-textual bases, you’re playing with fire.
October 9, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Isn’t the fallacy of Roe in a “living document” approach to Constitutional interpretation? The constitution is reinterpreted based solely on the arrogant assumtion that the basis of the founders’ philosophy could not possibly apply to, and is outdated to our modern levels of sophistication.
Admittedly, the founders were fallible and allowed for an ammendment process. But when it comes to our inalienable rights, the court favored a “right to privacy” not enumerated in the B.O.R. over erring on the side of safeguarding the fundamental right to life, here, of the unborn. And to add insult, it even removed the issue from the purvue of the states, based on this bad const. interpretational philosophy.
I am amazed at how different our legal system would look to the 1787 delegates from our finding. Since Marberry v Madison, really.
October 10, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Well, yes, the “living Constitution” rationale did play somewhat of a role in Roe, as no one could have made the argument (with a straight face) that anyone in 1868 would have interpreted the right to “due process” in the Fourteenth Amendment (the Clause relied upon in Roe) as including the right to abortion.