The Truth on Biden’s Abortion Malarkey

By Selwyn Duke

When Joe Biden was asked about abortion in the vice-presidential debate last Thursday, he replied with what, in part, has become boilerplate. “I accept my church’s position on abortion…” he said. “Life begins at conception; that’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life; I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman [Paul Ryan].”

The personally-opposed, no-values-imposed (PONVI) argument is nothing new. For instance, consider the following version of a typical pro-abortion appeal:

If each person will only agree to mind his own business, and leave his neighbors alone, there will be peace forever between us.... I am now speaking of rights under the constitution, and not of moral or religious rights.... It is for women to decide... the moral and religious right of the abortion question for themselves within their own limits....

Now consider that this passage was altered by Professor Michael Pakaluk, but was originally written by Stephen Douglas with “states” in the place of “women” and “slavery” in place of “abortion.” This typical “pro-choice” argument was originally a defense of slavery. (Note that Douglas, the consummate politician, did denounce slavery in private.)

So the fallacy of the PONVI position is revealed when we apply it to other things. “Personally, I’m opposed to rape, but I understand the world is shades of gray; “Personally, I’m opposed to slavery; I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, Mr. Lincoln.” Would we consider this a moral and compelling reason to not prohibit these things?

Some will now say that rape and slavery are very different from abortion, in that they directly hurt another person. To thus contend, however, is to depart from the PONVI argument and delve into the nature of the act in question. It then follows that if abortion also directly hurts another person, it may warrant prohibition as well.

And this is the problem with PONVI: it is a dodge. Abortion, or whatever is being discussed, may be good, bad, or morally neutral; it may or may not be a legitimate function of government to legislate on it. But we’ll never know when indulging the PONVI dodge because it doesn’t actually tackle the nature of what’s being discussed. Instead, it’s only moral component is the implication that it’s noble to not impose values on others. Yet we do this all the time: a law, by definition, is the imposition of a value. 

Another common argument used against the pro-life stance is that it’s a religious position and thus not the legitimate stuff of laws. Vice-presidential debate moderator Martha Raddatz’ abortion question played upon this, as she asked the two candidates how their Catholic faith shaped their views on the subject. And it was in a way reflected when slavery advocate Stephen Douglas said, “I am now speaking of rights under the constitution, and not of moral or religious rights….” And ne’er the twain shall meet?

Not according to Joe Biden. “My religion defines who I am… It has particularly informed my social doctrine,” he said in the debate. He then went on to chide his opponent, saying that Congressman Ryan takes issue with “Catholic social doctrine.” Think about that for a moment. Biden wasn’t criticizing Ryan’s personal charitable behavior, but his public policy; moreover, Catholic social doctrine involves a multitude of ways in which we can help our fellow man, and Biden believes that the government should help citizens (and maybe non-citizens) in a multitude of ways. Thus, Biden was chastising Ryan for not letting his religion influence a huge swath of public policy. Like a Saudi cleric, Biden was advocating the imposition of religious principles through government. And guess what?

He’s right to do so.

(That is, he was {inadvertently} right about the nature of law—but not about the amount of it we should have.)

For while we can have a separation of church and state, there can never be a separation of church and just law. I know this is a controversial statement, but I’ll explain what I mean by connecting the dots.

Any law is the imposition of a “value,” but a just law is more specific: it imposes morality. After all, a law states that there is something we must or mustn’t do. But why must or mustn’t we? Sure, it could be because monarchs or masses feel like it and have the power, but that’s simply might making right. For a law to be just, what is prescribed or proscribed must be, respectively, a moral imperative or morally wrong—or a corollary thereof. To dispute this is to say that you would prohibit something even though it’s not wrong or mandate something even though it’s not a good. What would be the point? Only tyrants do that.

So a just law must reflect morality, but what is morality? Who determines it? There are only two possibilities: man or something outside of man does. Let’s consider the implications of each one.

Imagine that 95 percent of humanity liked chocolate and disliked vanilla. Would this make vanilla “wrong” or “immoral”? Of course not. We know such things are mere matters of taste. Okay, but then how can we rightly claim that murder, rape, or slavery is “immoral” if the only reason we’re doing so is that the vast majority of us don’t happen to like it? If the only argument we can hang our hat on is consensus preference, then it falls into the same category as flavors: taste.

Some will now point out that the aforementioned acts hurt others, but who is to say that’s wrong? Exasperated, you may now say “Everybody! That’s who!” But “everybody” is people, so we’re again down to consensus preference. It’s a merry-go-round always bringing us back to the same pointless point. And there’s only one way off it.

This is to accept the point: the one way we can rightly say an act is “wrong” or “immoral” is if something outside of man and supreme (i.e., God) has deemed that it’s so—is if it’s dictated by the objective reality called Truth. This is why the Founding Fathers took pains to emphasize that our rights are endowed by our Creator. They knew that for a principle to have credibility, it has to reflect more than merely consensus preference. It has to reflect morality, which, incidentally, is never “personal,” but universal and eternal.

So here are the dots and destination: a just law must reflect morality. Morality implies God. Things of God are discussed and discovered in the realm we call religion. Therefore, religion must and always does shape law—if that law is to be just. There is no way around it.

And what if God didn’t exist? Then what we call a just law couldn’t be any more “right” than “unjust” law, as this, too, would be reduced to preference. It is realities such as this that devoted atheists should consider. You won’t believe in the divine? Alright. But then we can dispense with words such as right, wrong, good, bad (as they relate to behavior), morality, and even values, as they’re then just redundancies that, while lending an illusory sense of meaning, only apply in religious fairytales and therefore muddy the waters. Just say what you mean and accept that our laws and social codes are all a matter of taste; accept that all of our arguments are mere vanity, that they’re but an intellectual veneer applied to an edifice of desire, and that there’s nothing noble in our cultural and political battles. It’s just a matter of who controls the guns by capturing the votes.

And what of religion in government? Well, if religious ideas really do come from God, the creator of the Universe, then they should infuse everything. And what if they don’t hail from Heaven and thus lack this divine credibility? Then religion is man-made just like everything else, so why discriminate against it? Why say that man-made ideas we happen to call secular (now, anyway) may be the stuff of laws, but man-made ideas we happen to call religious may not be? If all is man-made, religious/secular is in a sense a false distinction.

Of course, operating with a full understanding of the relativistic world view, devoted militant secularists now could tell us why they discriminate against “religion”: “Because we can.” And this explains why our political battles become more underhanded and vicious all the time: If “[m]an is the measure of all things,” he can never fail to measure up no matter how far down he goes.

       © 2012 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved

Comments

[Robert Berger]

The comparison between slavery and abortion is totally specious ,unfair and invalid .
When the Civil War ended, so did slavery . But you can NEVER "end" abortion by making it illegal .
Abortion is not the result of an intentional conspiracy of some group to "Kill babies". It just happens, because of poverty and other adverse social and economic causes .
If anything, it would be a form of slavery for the U.S. government to declare that "by order of the state, all women who are pregnant must give birth or else ". It would reduce poor black and Hispanic women to baby-making machines . They would be the ones worst affected by government-ordered compulsory childbearing . Women who could afford it would just easily fly off to Europe or elsewhere for safe, legal ones, while polor women would risk their lives and health every day at the hands of dangerous back-alley abortionists . The poorest would just kill themsleves with coat hangers and other makeshift devices .

[Philip France]

Robert says: "Abortion is not the result of an intentional conspiracy of some group to "Kill babies".

He is wrong. It is a conspiracy that has its origins in the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. It was championed by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and its goal was to eliminate the negro race and others that they deemed "defectives".

Abortion, plainly and simply, is the murdering of a human baby in the womb (and often outside of it). This practice should be condemned in every circumstance. There is no just or moral means to condone it.

Robert, you should grow up before commenting on sites such as these where people of good conscience and moral values come to read and learn from an erudite intellectual with exceptional observation skills and articulate writing gifts.

[Robert Berger]

I know all about Margaret Sanger. All the stories about her are FALSE .
She never set out to cause "genocide" against anyone . Abortion was already very common in her lifetime, and had been for thousands of years .
Abortion is not common anywhere because of her . And in fact, more abortions happen in countries where it is illegal than wher eit is legal. Take Brazil, where it is illegal and which is the world's largest Catholic nation. Every year, more abortions happen than in America because of the enormous poverty and lack of access to contraceptives .
If the US government would just provide subsidies for poor pregnant women to provide for their children, born or unborn, the abortion rate would plummet here .But it doesn't do this, so abortion is common. Right to life? Waht about the right of children to decent food,shelter, education and medical care? As long as we have so much pocerty here, abortion will remain common.
But take the prosperous nations of Europe, such as germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria and Scandinavia. These countries have the world's LOWEST abortion rates . Why? Because there is little poverty and a secure safety net for all citizens .

[Philip France]

Robert,

You comment at many conservative web pages and yet you learn absolutely nothing from them. You are utterly wrong about everything that you espouse. By your comments,you repeatedly demonstrate that you have the social and political acumen of a six year-old.

Trust me: No one who visits these pages and blogs with genuine inquiry wants to hear from you. I respect your right to express such idiocy but why bother?

Instead of vomiting on otherwise mature dialog, you should spend your time reading "The Liberal Mind: The Psycological Causes of Political Madness" by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D., one of our nations most highly respected psychiatrists.

[Robert Berger]

Phil France, as usual, you don't know what you're talking about. But what right-wing dolt does ?
If the US government were to make abortion illegal again, it owuld be asolutely catastrophic for America.
Back-alley abortionists would instantly srping into action, and poor women would risk their lives and health every day . The number of dead or seriously injured women would skyrocket . Since Roe v Wade, only a tiny handful of women have died from legal abortions, unlike the past when so many did .
But anti-choicers are in denial abpout this fact. They conveniently ignore the fact that when women died from botched illegal abortions, newspapers did not report this. And if women lose reproductive freedom , there will be absolutely no way to enforce laws against abortion . No country has ever been able to do this . In order to enforce the law in an America where abortion was illegal again, the government would have to turn this nation into a totalitarian police state with women under constrant surveillance to make sure no abortions were happening .
America would not be a "free" nation at all, but would become a nightmare scenario right out of Orwell's 1984 .And abortion would still be rampant .

[Philip France]

Robert,

You are out of your mind. You have no idea of what you are talking about. You should be talking about the murder of babies in their mother's womb, which should be the safest place on earth.

You are one of Lenin's useful idiots and you bought the Frankfurt School lies hook-line-and-sinker.

Please go away.

[JasonP]

Very nice discussion, Mr. Duke, but you present a false alternative. It’s subtly implicit in your text here: “So a just law must reflect morality, but what is morality? Who determines it? There are only two possibilities: man or something outside of man does.”

You are implying that all moral law is positive law with the only question being who posits the law: man or God. You leave out the possibility that law is discovered in nature.

Let’s consider the statement “smoking two packs of cigarettes is bad.” This, of course, was discovered. It wasn’t posited by God and told to Moses. Nor was it posited by government. It was discovered. Such excessive smoking harms health and threatens one’s life.

Now let’s assert that the institution of private property is good. This, too, was discovered. Almost all societies (Christian and pagan) realized, to some degree, that production is to be encouraged and long-range projects undertaking (like farming) some respect for private property is required. Locke abstracted this truth and showed it was an absolute right by arguing that reasoned productive activity requires it. Marx argued against it and famine, slaughter, and suffering followed.

Thus, empirical evidence established the importance of private property to human life just as absolutely as medicine discovers the rules to lead a healthy life with respect to physiology.

Now if you want to say nature’s laws (physics, medicine, ethical) are authored by nature’s creator and are therefore His laws, please do so. But in that case they clearly can be discovered by examining his works, i.e. nature, whether one reads His word or not.

[Robert Berger]

Phil France, you just don't realize the simple fact that abortions, tragic as they are, are going to happen whether they are egal or not . There is absolutley no way to stop women from having them. The only way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to provide thew kind of help poor pregnant women need for their children so they will not have them .
The more overty in a nation, the more abortions. The less poverty, the fewer abortions. This is why the prosperous nations of western Europe and Scandinavia have the world's lowest abortions .

[Anti-White Crime]

Dear JasonP,

I have responded to your post as a blog piece. You can view my response on the home page.

God bless,

Selwyn Duke