I seem to be obsessed with VPs lately.
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic nominee for vice president, departed Sunday from party doctrine on abortion rights, declaring that as a Catholic, he believes life begins at conception.
Now I know secular folk are in the minority in America. And I suppose Mr Biden can think what he likes about when life begins. But cheese it, people, when will we start addressing issues in an empirical way? The superstition thing is killing us.
Bet it’s a Palin thing.
While Mr. Biden’s views may not be new to Democrats in his circle, his comments, in an interview on “Meet the Press” on NBC, came at a time when his party is confronted with a new face: Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, whose anti-abortion stance and decision to give birth just five months ago to a baby with Down syndrome have revved up the conservative base of her party.
Is this some kind of tactic? Or is Biden just saying what he thinks?
It looks like a smart move at first. Palin’s pro-life, so bring out pro-life Biden to minimise the difference. Pull off some pro-life votes. Obama’s holding on to the pro-choice vote over there, so no problem.
It’s a dumb move for two reasons. One, appealing to evangelical Christians is stupid because they aren’t going to vote for a Democrat, and certainly not a Catholic Democrat. Second, most people poll up as pro-choice, and have for decades. Why shift the window toward the anti-choice side, when it’s a position that’s not empirically grounded, repressive, and unpopular? Pro-lifers won’t be happy to simply ban abortion. They’re already calling for the abolition of certain kinds of birth control. Why cede any ground their way at all?
I could forgive Biden if he’d simply strayed off-message, but if this is a tactic, it’s a lousy one.
8 September 2008 at 4:08 pm
I hate to be an uneducated democrate but how does what Biden say depart from party doctrine? I thought pro-choice was just that…choice, as in personal choice.
Besides, I have always felt that if you let the entire conversation go to when “life rights” begin we lose the aurgument. Abortion to me is really first, a public health issue, then a womans (and mans) right to control thier own reproductive system and third, a medical matter that should remain between people and thier doctors. IO do not see how bidens personal feelings about the subject would effect those three areas, so why can’t a good dem think what biden thinks and still come down on the subject within party “doctrine”?
8 September 2008 at 7:45 pm
If you read the actual Meet the Press transcript, Biden’s response was better (from our point of view) than the NYT makes out. After given his own personal view he went on to say that in a pluralistic society you could not legislate those relgious views and he had always voted for choice.
Non-religious people were, as usual, not mentioned amongst those with “legitimate differing views” but anyway, it wasn’t quite the lame sop it appeared to be.
9 September 2008 at 12:12 am
Biden’s views are fine in context. Perhaps it was a bit hasty of me to say he’s pro-life. But it concerns me that he’s making noises toward the pro-life side.
I agree with you, Jeffrey. Biden can have whatever views he chooses to have, though I wish we could get away from superstition. I hope he was just speaking his mind. I hope it wasn’t an attempt to attract conservatives because it just won’t work.
As to Amanda’s comment, it is encouraging that Biden has framed his views this way. I actually kind of like the way Obama and Biden have approached issues of faith. They tend to say, “I believe this, but we need to leave it open for people who don’t.”
9 September 2008 at 3:21 pm
I’m unsure what superstition you are refering to. (are you talking about a soul entering an embryo atsome point.) Even without that you have to decide on some moral basis if unborn children have rights (if not, why) and if yes, when. Then you have to decide what other moral considerations may trump the unborn childs. In the end the goal should be to minimize abortions but the dems are on the right side of that aurgument.
10 September 2008 at 2:19 pm
Yes, that was the superstition I was referring to. And it does go back to a folk notion about people having souls or spirits or what have you.
Even without that you have to decide on some moral basis if unborn children have rights (if not, why) and if yes, when. Then you have to decide what other moral considerations may trump the unborn childs.
That’s a debate I’d love to see. Just not on Meet the Press during campaign season. It makes Obama/Biden look like they’re running scared when, as you say, they’re on the right side.