Biden Principled (Though Wrong) on Abortion

Fellow Patheos blogger Timothy Dalrymple has suggested that Joe Biden’s response to the question on abortion in the VP debate was incoherent. If he truly believes Catholic doctrine on the matter, he argues, it is not coherent to refuse to impose that view on others through the law. consistency would require, he believes, an attempt to coerce others to abide by the consequences of his beliefs, whether they share them or not:

If you believe, as the Catholic church does, that a sacred human life begins at conception, you simply cannot do nothing.  What you are asserting (sacred human life begins at conception) is not a matter of subjective taste.  It’s an assertion of fact.  And if you are truly convinced of that fact, then there is nothing noble or tolerant or praiseworthy, or even remotely thoughtful or ethical, about standing by while those innocent human lives are extinguished.

Dalrymple is wrong, because he assumes Biden is making an “assertion of fact” when it seems clear he is making an “assertion of faith”. It is perfectly consistent (though I would argue wrong-headed) to say “I believe X on the basis of my religious commitments, but since I cannot justify my religious commitments to you to such an extent that I can expect you to come to hold them, I cannot expect you to abide by the consequences of X”. The clue is in Dalrymple’s later statement:

“Biden is saying: “I believe what the Catholic Church believes, that preborn children are sacred human lives — but I will simply stand by while anyone who wants to do so kills them.” [emphasis mine]

Clearly, if you understand the sacred differently or reject notions of sacrality altogether the argument presented has no force against you.

Biden’s is a modest position because it recognizes that deeply-held religious commitments do not have the same level of justification as other sorts of commitments, and it is a civil position because it does not lead to Biden having to impose the consequences of his religious beliefs on others. The logical consequence of Dalrymple’s position, in fact, is that every lawmaker who has sincere religious beliefs which govern human activity should, at all times, seek to enact those beliefs in law, because not to do so would be incoherent.

Does anyone truly wish to live in such a society? Luckily, most lawmakers (like Biden, and unlike Paul Ryan) recognize that justificatory standards for public policy are different to those used when assessing the truth of their faith.

"I invite the author to look up the horrors of Democratic Kampuchea, and how the ..."

I Used to Think Like Dave ..."
"For the same reason that religious rejectionists are prejudiced against religion and actually are repulsed ..."

Why Are People Prejudiced Against Atheists?
"You made a very fair and honest observation, and yet the conclusions are tricky. If ..."

I Used to Think Like Dave ..."
"Has Rubin ever actually said that structural inequalities, and power balances don't exist? Has he ..."

I Used to Think Like Dave ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment