LifeNews.com: Barack Obama Doesn't Know When Life Begins, He And Clinton OK Abortion

Here's the link: Barack Obama Doesn't Know When Life Begins, He and Clinton OK Abortion

Here's the text:

The two pro-abortion Democratic candidates sparred at a forum on faith issues at Messiah College in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. During the discussion, Barack Obama admitted he didn't understand the biological fact that human life begins at conception and Hillary Clinton restated her pro-abortion views.

Obama largely avoided a question about when human life begins but appeared to be unfamiliar with the notion of the union of sperm and egg at conception conferring the life of a new, unique human being.

"This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on," Obama said in the forum. "I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs?"

Obama added: "What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates."

Clinton appeared more confident in her response, but still couched it in terms of "potential" life - a term abortion advocates frequently use to get around the idea of abortion taking a human life.

"I believe the potential for life begins at conception," Clinton said.

"For me, it is also not only about a potential life. It is about the other lives involved," Clinton added in a subtle reference to supporting abortion.

Then, Clinton made her position in favor of legalized abortion more readily clear.

"I have concluded, after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society."

"I think abortion should remain legal," she added.

Later, Clinton said she sought wisdom from God about tough moral questions like abortion, but admitted she didn't know if she had the right answers.

"I don't pretend to even believe that I know the answers to a lot of these questions," Clinton said. "I don't."

Obama stressed that "adoption is an option," but remained firmly committed to supporting another 35 years of legal abortions, which have produced more than 50 million deaths and injured millions of women in the process.

"Those of us, like myself, who believe that in this difficult situation it is a woman's responsibility and choice to make in consultation with her doctor and her pastor and her family," he said.

"I think we will continue to suggest that that's the right legal framework to deal with the issue," he added.

While that view seems incompatible with the majority of Americans who take a pro-life view on abortion, Obama tried to downplay his pro-abortion position saying, “I absolutely think we can find common ground" and "we can take some of the edge off the debate."

Obama said that "people of good will can exist on both sides," but he's not likely to find many takers for his candidacy from those who believe abortion kills children and injures women.

Like Obama, Clinton also hoped to move away from her extreme position -- with both candidates opposing limits on taxpayer funded abortions, opposing parental involvement, and opposing a ban on partial-birth abortions.

"I will continue to do what I can to reduce the number" of abortions," Clinton said during the forum.

My thoughts:

If you're out hunting deer and you see something moving in the brush that could be a deer but might also be a human being, you can't just shoot at whatever is moving in the brush. You can only shoot it if you are certain it is not a human being. Shooting without certain knowledge that you aren't risking taking a human life is to be indifferent to whether or not your choice ends up killing an innocent human being.

The same principle applies with abortion, where even pro-abortion advocates admit uncertainty about the humanity of the developing life.

Admitting uncertainty as to when human life begins, but firmly maintaining that legal, elective abortion from conception until birth (which is what Roe vs. Wade allows) is a human "right" is really and essentially the articulation of indifference as to whether or not elective abortion is an act of murder while supporting legal, elective abortion at the same time.

Senator Obama expressed that "people of good will can exist on both sides" [of the abortion debate].

Rudy Giuliani said something similar during his presidential run and I wrote about it here: Rudy Giuliani On Abortion: "Very Good People Of Equally Good Conscience Could Come To Different Opinions"

I'm including the entirety of that post after the jump...

The text below came from here: Full Rudy Context

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have a question about the former platform in the Republican Party allowed abortion in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother. I believe in that and I believe that because of the abortion issue in the Republican Party it is dividing this party so badly that we may not be able to elect a Republican president and I hope-I’d like to hear what your thoughts are on that.”

MAYOR GIULIANI: “What my thoughts are on the big question? I can tell you my thoughts on both.”

AUDIENCE MEMBER: “The big question.”

GIULIANI: “On the big question my thoughts are we shouldn’t allow it to do that. Electing a Republican in 2008 is so important to the war on terror, the ability to keep up an economy that’s an economy or growth, or from the point of view of what we believe as Republicans to really set us in the wrong direction. Democrats are entitled to think something different but I think that there will be a major difference in the direction of this country whether we have a Republican or Democrat in 2008 and 2009. On abortion I think we should respect each other. I think that’s what we should do and we should respect the fact that this is a very difficult moral question and a very difficult question and that very good people of equally good conscience could come to different opinions on it. My view of it is I hate abortion. I think abortion is wrong. To someone who I cared about or cared to talk to me about it and wanted my advice, the advice I would give them is not to do it and to have adoption as an option to it. When I was the Mayor adoptions went way up, abortions went down but ultimately I respect that that’s somebody else’s decision and that people of conscience can make that decision either way and you can’t put them in jail for it. (applause) And then I think our party, our party has to get beyond issues like that where we can have people who are very good people who have different views about this, they can all be Republican because our party is going to grow and we’re going to win in 2008 if we’re a party that is characterized for what we are for and not if we’re a party that’s known for what we are against. …” (Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Campaign Event, Des Moines IA, 4/14/07)

LifeNews.com has this article on Rudy's comments: Rudy Giuliani Tells Pro-Life Advocates: Get Over Abortion Issue

Here are my own thoughts:

Two people of "equally good conscience" cannot come to different views about abortion. Think about the inanity of that statement. In order to have that view, one must believe the morality of abortion is a personal preference, like whether or not someone likes brussels sprouts or sauerkraut.

The moral law is not a matter of private opinion, and two people of "equally good conscience" cannot come to different views about abortion.

Fr. John Hardon's Pocket Catholic Dictionary defines conscience as follows:

Conscience - The judgment of the practical intellect deciding, from general principles of faith and reason, the goodness or badness of a way of acting that a person now faces.

It is an operation of the intellect and not of the feelings or even of the will. An action is right or wrong because of objective principles to which the mind must subscribe, not because a person subjectively feels that way or because his will wants it that way.

Conscience, therefore, is a specific act of the mind applying its knowledge to a concrete moral situation. What the mind decides in a given case depends on principles already in the mind.

These principles are presupposed as known to the mind, either from the light of natural reason reflecting on the data of creation, or from divine faith responding to God's supernatural revelation. Conscience does not produce these principles; it accepts them. Nor does conscience pass judgment on the truths of reason and divine faith; it uses them as the premises from which to conclude whether something should be done (or should have been done) because it is good, or should be omitted (or should have been omitted) because it is bad. Its conclusions also apply to situations where the mind decides that something is permissible or preferable but not obligatory.

Always the role of conscience is to decide subjectively on the ethical propriety of a specific action, here and now, for this person, in these circumstances. But always, too, the decision is a mental conclusion derived from objective norms that conscience does not determine on its own, receiving it as given by the Author of nature and divine grace.

The conscience is simply an operation of the intellect utilizing knowledge about the morality of particular actions from the past, being done in the present, or considered for the future. It's not a feeling or a choice. One's conscience is entirely dependent upon the information within the intellect about the morality of the concrete actions being considered.

The "voice" of conscience is simply the application of one's knowledge of the moral law to concrete actions.

If a person is ignorant of the moral law their conscience may well be erroneous, although they may have reasoned things out correctly from a proper understanding of the natural law. Such an understanding is difficult where attachment to sin is involved, because sin darkens the intellect (where conscience resides) and it weakens the will (which makes it more difficult to listen to the voice of conscience and makes it more tempting to try to maintain an affected ignorance of the moral law in areas where an individual is prone to temptation).

Ignorance of the moral law diminishes culpability. There are two types of ignorance: vincible and invincible ignorance.

Invincible ignorance is when one does not know and cannot come to know the truth about one's moral obligations. Invincible ignorance nullifies culpability.

Vincible ignorance means that a person is capable of coming to knowledge of the truth about his or her moral obligations, but does not do so for one reason or another.

Affected vincible ignorance is when a person deliberately avoids learning the truth about his or her moral obligations in regard to a given matter. Affected vincible ignorance does not diminish culpability at all. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that ignorance of this kind increases, rather than lessens, one's culpability.

An individual's conscience can be either true or erroneous, and certain or doubtful.

A true conscience is one that properly reflects the objective moral law in its grasp of the natural law and/or Divine positive law.

A false conscience (or erroneous conscience) is a conscience that is in error about the objective moral law in its grasp of both the natural law and Divine positive law.

A certain conscience involves having no doubt as to one's understanding of the objective moral law in terms of the natural law and/or Divine positive law. A certain conscience may be either true (correct) or erroneous (incorrect).

A certain conscience must be obeyed, because a certain conscience means that a person is in no doubt as to God's Will in relation to the morality or immorality of a given action. If a person violates their certain conscience, they perform an action they know (or at least firmly believe over any evidence to the contrary or due to ignorance of compelling evidence to the contrary) to be a sin. That's why one must always obey a certain conscience (even if it is an erroneous conscience). So a Protestant who believes that attending Holy Mass is a serious sin cannot go to Mass (even though he is in error) because he believes that it would offend God for Him to go to Mass. In reality, it would not, but if he were to go to Mass, he would be willing to offend God in a serious matter, and that willingness to commit what one thinks is a serious sin is, in fact, a serious sin. The sin wouldn't be in the act, but rather in the act of choosing to do what one believed without a doubt to be offensive to God (even if the act is objectively good or morally indifferent).

Progressive Catholics cling to this teaching with a devotion I can only admire, because if my devotion to God were half as fervent as the devotion Cafeteria Catholics who know anything about theology have for this one Church teaching (which they often use to negate or ignore other Church teachings, and thereby unwittingly negate their own rationale for holding the belief in the first place), I would be a great saint.

The Church's teaching about certain conscience is mistakenly understood by Catholics who reject Church teaching in one or more areas as the magic loophole that allows them to do as they please without submission to the teachings of the Church regarding the moral question being considered.

The problem is that Catholics are bound to submit to the infallible authority of the Church on matters of faith and morals.

Remember that the conscience is only an operation of the intellect. The human intellect can only contain what is extracted (learned) from external sources.

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches about the formation of conscience:

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also says:

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct. 1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience. 1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

If ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, and/or lack of conversion and of charity can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct, as the Catechism plainly teaches, then it follows that the opposite of those things, namely, knowledge of Christ and His Gospel, acceptance of the Church's authority and teaching, submission to that same authority (rather than mistakenly asserting the erroneous notion of autonomy of conscience even over the authority of Church teaching) and a spirit of true charity and conversion conjoined with the mortification of one's passions (as opposed to being enslaved by them) is the road to a true conscience.

The Catechism refers to the authority of the Church (in both passages I cited). An authority knows more than those under it. That's why it's an authority. The Church is said to be an authority in matters of conscience and a true conscience is in conformity with the authority of the Church.

Properly formed consciences must conform to the teaching of the Church, since the Church is infallible on matters of faith and morals. Since the infallible authority of the Church must inform our consciences and Christ teaches that we must "hear the Church" and says, "he who hears you, hears Me; he who rejects you, rejects Me; he who rejects me, rejects Him Who sent me", our consciences cannot set aside the teaching of the Church or overrule the infallible authority of the Church on a matter of faith and morals.

Moreover, all true (or good) consciences will be of the same opinion, because the goodness of the conscience depends upon the truth value of the information within the intellect about the morality of concrete actions, not upon the intentions or sincerity of the individual.

Truth is when the idea in our minds conforms to the reality outside our minds.

Fr. John Hardon defines truth as follows:

Truth - Conformity of mind and reality. Three kinds of conformity give rise to three kinds of truth. In logical truth, the mind is conformed or in agreement with things outside the mind, either in assenting to what is or in denying what is not. Its opposite is error. In metaphysical or ontological truth, things conform with the mind. This is primary conformity, when something corresponds to the idea of its maker, and it is secondary conformity when something is intelligible and therefore true to anyone who knows it. In moral truth, what is said conforms with what is on one's mind. This is truthfulness and its opposite is falsehood.

If a good conscience conforms to the truth, and the truth is an idea in conformity with objective reality, then it follows logically that all true consciences will come to the same conclusions about the morality of any given action.

It is true that if a person were to have an erroneous, certain conscience due to invincible ignorance, their action would not merit punishment (even if the choice made is an objectively serious sin).

That's a pretty big "if". God will not be deceived by our rationalizations and efforts at self-delusion. If we affect ignorance and have the opportunity to know the truth, especially if we reject the opportunity or act in doubt without caring to determine whether or not our actions seriously offend God, we are responsible in the eyes of God.

One can never act with a doubtful conscience. To act with a doubtful conscience is to choose to potentially offend God (which is in the same spirit as deliberately choosing to do what one believes actually offends God).

Rudy Giuliani says he "hates" abortion, thinks it is "wrong", and would advise anyone close to him against it. Why? What's so terrible about it, Rudy? It must be an awful thing for you to "hate" it and think it is "wrong"!

If abortion is so wrong and something worthy of your hatred, Rudy, why do you think should be a civil right?

Rudy knows abortion is wrong. We know this because he has told us he thinks it is wrong. Rudy's conscience knows that abortion is an evil he deems worthy of the word "hate".

How can he believe another person of "equally good conscience" can believe abortion is good and that such a judgment is of equal value and merit?

Either abortion is good or it is not. There is no third possibility. If someone thinks elective abortion is the deliberate killing of innocent, unborn, human life, they can't respect the view that abortion is a good thing or that it should be legally available to anyone who wants one. Their conscience informs them that abortion is murder.

Asking pro-life voters to ignore the issue of abortion and respect viewpoints which threaten innocent, unborn human life essentially asks those voters to ignore their own consciences.

Question: Why does Rudy want us to ignore our consciences?

Answer: So that he can be the President of the United States.

I'm not willing to throw innocent, unborn human life to be sacrificed on the altar of convenience in order to appease Mr. Giuliani's desire to be president.

I don't think that anyone who considers killing innocent, unborn human life an important civil right is fit for political office, regardless of their positions on other issues. To think otherwise is morally repulsive.

Imagine a candidate advocating the legalization of pedophilia. Who in their right mind would care if that candidate had excellent ideas about reforming Social Security or helping people have affordable health care?

Pro-abortion candidates are not a moral option.

See also:

Will Senator Obama Use Iraq To Win The Catholic Vote?

Just War Doctrine

Rorate Caeli – Papal Reminders On Catholics & Politics: Three Non-Negotiables

Catholic Bishops On Voting For Pro-Abortion Candidates

Heart of Darkness. Barack Obama's Abortion Stance

Meditation: Obama And The Punishment Of Unborn Life

Senator Barack Obama: Christianity Has Been “Hijacked” By The “Christian Right”

Jesus Was Not A Liberal

The Apple Argument Against Abortion

Audio: Pro-Life Philosophy — The philosophical case against abortion — by Peter Kreeft

Abortion - None Dare Risk Murder

A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters

Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics

Any thoughts?

Comments

[CatholicCrusader]

People of genuinely good will and good conscience cannot vote for either of the likely Democratic candidates. Sen. Barack Obama's seeming confusion about when life begins is merely a tactic to obfuscate -- a tactic designed to portray himself as sincere, sensitive and searching for the truth. Hillary Clinton makes less effort to cloak her choice in the fog of uncertainty. Until a woman gives birth to a rabbit, we know it is a human life in the womb, and taking that life is murder. Period.

[WillyJ]

All I can say is the post articulated it excellently.

[joanne]

This will definitely confuse some Catholics and seem to justify others:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24103768

Just what the pro-life movement doesn't need right now: betrayal.

It makes me wonder how firmly pro-life our other pro-life politicians are.
I'm still considering writing in Huckabee in November. It's McCain's desire to de-fund PP that prompts (tempts?) me to vote for him. I don't think he'll backpedal on the necessary distrust and unmasking of Planned Parenthood. Whereas, Obama, Clinton, and most US citizens are still deceived by PP's media-driven image as helpful to the needy and minorities.

[Jeffrey]

Hillary's abhorrence of government intervening in a free society is so ridiculous as to be an open faced lie. Nobody wants the government to do more than Hillary (ok, maybe Obama). She has no respect for people's personal lives, unless their personal lives serve her agenda.

[Joe of St. Therese]

It's simple, if they define life at beginnig at conception, their position dies.

[Jimbo]

What is so angering about Obama's claim about finding a "middle ground" on the whole abortion debate is that it ignores the actual debate: those who think pre-born fetuses are real human beings and those who think doctors should be allowed to suck out their brains as they emerge from the uterus.

Where's the middle ground to that, you swindler?

I guess the good Senator has a grossly distorted, grandiose view of the give and take of politics. Because, as a community organizer, this guy got two groups together battling over a proposed street light to compromise on a stop sign, he thinks he's a great negotiator.

The arrogance is quite something.