Sunday, September 7, 2008

Sen. Joe Biden: Faith not Science?

I have been highly critical of the mainstream media regarding the depth of which they chose to question the record of Senator Joe Biden. Personally, I find Mr. Biden a remarkable politcial figure in our nations history and virtually my entire adult life. I cannot remember a major issue trying our nation at any time in the last twenty years that Joe Biden was not approached for a comment.

When I learned that Sen. Biden would be on Meet the Press this morning, I was confident that Tom Brokaw would be objective and challenge him on the issues as Tim Russert would certainly have. I was sure that Mr. Brokaw would keep in the tradition of the show and not let the interview seem be a talking point one that we have seen all to often this campaign.

The most striking thing I took away from the interview was some deep insight into exactly how it is this Democrat team rationalize their ideals. I was rather shocked to learn that Sen. Biden, a fellow Catholic, would explain his view on abortion as rather a simple view of faith and religion.

Visit here:

The explaination intrigued me. The idea that "life" begins as he states in his view "at conception" is tied to the society which he refers to as a "pluralistic" culture by way of faith and religion seem to be a valid point on balance given the intense nature of the issue of abortion but I was left a little baffled by the fact that this revelation was coming from the Democratic nominee for Vice President. I do not think you would get an arguement from most Americans regarding "conception" or even fertilization but stressing that it is a direct result of ones religious views and one's faith.

Pardon me, but what about Science?

Our young people learn about reproduction, either sexual or asexual, in a science context like biology not in a religious class. And since there are those in our society who prefer not to allow our young people to learn about religious values or history in our public school systems let stick with the science aspect.

The very notion that religion and values is what determines when life begins or is conceived is interesting given all we teach our children. Scientifically we can determine the age of an embryo not by faith or by religion, but by what we know through science. We know exactly how an embryo should progress through its development through science and not faith.

My hope was that Mr. Brokaw would have followed up the response with these basic truths. Birth and delivery while certainly a blessing from God, is performed through the parameters governing the science, in this case the true medical science, that has been universally accepted. Faith does not determine when an egg is fertilized. Are those couples currently undergoing invitro governed by faith or by the science that is the foundation that would permit such fertilization in the first place.

So my first part was a question of science. My life is deeply rooted in faith but objectively to answer a question of abortion by a Democrat I was surprised that the answer was not based more in the science. And I wonder why not?

Could it be that the science simply does not fit the politics? If science tells us that life begins once an egg is fertilized than of course the arguements brought about by many that promote abortion and partial birth seem rather baseless. So science tells us that life actually begins the moment the embryo enters that first stage of development and of course that is what we teach our young people today in any science class.

And yet, Sen. Biden promotes a notion that life begins at conception as a matter of faith. No mention of science.

That said and if true and it is a matter of faith, should we then accept the Democratic platform on global warming and climate change as a matter of "faith". I thought that those strict constructionists regarding climate change always point to the "science" which they say is indisputable. The science behind the issue requires us to address all the issues. They use the science as a matter of principle in their platform. Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" as we were told was based completely on science and as a matter of fact the same proponents of this agenda are the ones who oppose the teaching of creationism along with evolution because it is not rooted in science but faith and religion.

Interesting dicotomy.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden would like to use science as a means of support for their specific arguements and positions on various issues, but dismiss it from the issue of abortion and the killing of a human life. Barack Obama thinks the issue is "above his pay grade" with regard to when life starts/begins exactly and apparently Joe Biden is equally confused given is rationalization regarding "as a matter of faith life begins at conception".

No Joe. As a matter of SCIENTIFIC fact LIFE begins with the fertilization process of the egg in the first developmental stages of an embryo and therefore that is when a life is created/begun and if you would like to argue the point regarding the value of a pro-choice platform that is one thing, but do not confuse the basis of life as a question of "faith".

Fact is their position is a psychological apologetic one in that it provides society with an out should they chose an abortion by instilling a line of psychological compassion for taking of a life by disputing whether that life is really a life or not. They have focused the issue of "rights" upon those in the position of power over the individual (the one opting to abort a life) over that of the powerless ( in this case the unborn) by traveling down this line of faith and religion and since we live in a pluralistic society we have to respect all points of view on this from differing religions.

No Joe.

That is why we use science as a convenant in the first place and our laws should reflect that regardless of religious ideology. Apply the same accepted scientific principles that you so readily apply to other aspects of the Democratic platform and determine to be consistent in how you base your political ideology.

1 comment:

Donald said...

I have to say I never really thought to compare the positions in the manner in which you have here.

This seems rather profound in terms analysis of how politicians formulate an intellectual position. I cannot help but wonder why we have not gotten a little more of this type of analysis from those who actually get paid to do it.

It is rather convincing and enlightening to see the irony between the issues you address here.

Hopefully it will cause more people to think critically and not simply just take the sound bite as the whole story.