Said Clinton:
I believe the potential for life begins at conception. For me, it is also not only about a potential life. It is about the other lives involved. ... I have concluded, after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, ... that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society.
Said Obama:
This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? ... What I know, as I've said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we're having these debates.
Both seem to be open to the possibility that life begins at conception, while at the same time, both resolutely support the "right" of a woman to end that "potential" life. Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the premise that we simply cannot know whether or not life begins at conception, would it not be wise counsel to err on the side of caution and protect by law the subject in question, for the very reason that it could be an innocent life? At least then, the conscience could divest itself of a horrific alternative: that of bearing the heavy guilt of knowing that it stood by silently as millions of unborn children were killed. I'd love to ask Clinton or Obama, "By admitting there is the potential for life, you have the responsibility of considering the consequences of that potentiality being real: What if it is a life? How, then, could you live with yourself?"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_religion
No comments:
Post a Comment