Obama’s Pay Grade Is Not Above Answering the Question About the Beginning of Human Life
(Monroe)
In his interview with Barack Obama Pastor Rick Warren asked him the question, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” Obama replied: “Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade. ”
Well, it’s not above my pay grade, so here’s my answer. For some years now I’ve agreed with Baylor University professor Francis Beckwith. Here’s Beckwith’s argument against abortion, with the answer to Warren’s question in premise 1. Note: Beckwith’s pay grade is surely lower than Obama’s.
1. The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community.
2. It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.
3. Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.
4. Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong. (In Francis Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, p. xii.)
Beckwith’s book is brilliant, and i think his argument is powerful. In the book he argues strongly for premise 1.
I now submit the following argument, which I think is understandable by people way below my pay grade:
1. Barack Obama’s pay grade is higher than my pay grade.
2. I can understand Beckwith’s argument that the unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community and therefore gets all the rights of the human community.
3. Therefore answering the question “When does a baby get human rights” is not above Obama’s pay grade.
And, by the way, the question as to when a baby gets human rights, or when personhood begins, cannot be answered scientifically.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:38 am
It struck me, reading this blog entry, that in asking the question, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” it seems to me that it’s the same sort of political baiting that the Pharisees tried to pull with Jesus; ie, “Should we pay taxes to Ceasar?” It’s a yes or no question, meant to place Obama squarely in one political camp. However, Obama refuses to allow himself to be categorized, and instead gives an alternative: let’s work across partisan lines to reduce the number of abortions. Let’s fight poverty, which has been linked with abortion rates, and other factors that have been statistically linked with abortions, so that we can get something accomplished, instead of continuing in this stalemate of trying to abolish Roe v. Wade/trying to uphold Roe v. Wade. The ultimate goal is still to eliminate abortions entirely, but until someone CAN prove scientifically that human life begins at conception (which, as you state, cannot be done), fallen people will continue to be pro-choice, and will continue to fight the outlawing of abortion, thus continuing the stalemate, and unborn babies will continue to die.
Tony Campolo dialogues on the Albert Mohler program on this issue; you can listen here: http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2008-07-17 .
Note: I am in no way equating Mr. Obama with Jesus, or Pastor Warren with Pharisees. I concede that Obama’s point about the question being “above his pay grade” was quite the cop-out, but I think that his ultimate goal of reducing the number of abortions is something our government should be striving towards.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Hi Allie - thank you for your response! Here’s a few thoughts I have.
1. I don’t think Warren’s question was political baiting. It’s a straghtforward question that is THE question re. the abortion issue. The abortion issue is very important to many people. I think Warren’s question was exceelent in how it was stated, because it gets right to the heart of the issue, which is: at what point is the conceptus a full-fledged member of the human community. At that moment the conceptus has all the rights any full-fledged human has, to include the right to life.
2. You say Obama refuses to be categorized, but for me his response puts him squarely in a category that is all too familiar. And that saddens me.
3. It seems reasonable to work to reduce the number of abortions if that-which-would-be-aborted is a full-fledged member of the human community. If that is not true, then I am not clear why we should want to reduce abortions. I agree that the goal is to reduce abortions entirely. But to me and others that only makes sense if the conceptus is fully human (see Beckwith, e.g.). Which raises THE question; viz., when does the inborn child get human rights.
4. Thanks for the Campolo link - I hope to have time to check it out.
5. Years ago a group of Jesus-followers (Ron Sider, Cardinal Bernardin, and I think Campolo) formed an alternative political party called Just Life. I was very interested in this. It was, for me, an example of people who refuse to be categorized on the “life” issue. This party was deeply committed to the rights of the poor and the marginalized and the unborn and so on… Personally, I wish we had a candidate who would have “a consistent ethic of life.” (See here, e.g. - http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/032/The%20Consistent%20Ethic%20of%20Life%20By%20David%20Gushee_032_3_.htm)