Biden: Some murders are more equal than others

I’m always pleased when someone who is in favor of abortion comes right out and admits that it’s the purposeful stoppage of a human life.  It saves time arguing the obvious.  With today’s technology, calling the baby “tissue,” “cells,” or some other weak euphemism isn’t really supportable.  When a heartbeat is detectable at 17 days – before many women even know they are pregnant – to pretend that this isn’t a human being is simply ridiculous.  Still, I’m willing to extend some grace to the willfully ignorant.  Not everyone pays close attention to the technological advances that put a conclusive end to the tissue and cells arguments, and they may genuinely believe abortion is not significantly different than having a tumor removed.

Mind you, those people are not over-burdened with logic or good old fashioned common sense – after all, who gets PTSD or needs a support group for a lumpectomy?  To the politicians who state that they want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare, I ask – why should it be rare?  What’s wrong with abortion?  No one is out there trying to limit tonsillectomies or appendectomies on moral grounds.  Here’s why people want it to be rare: because deep down, they know damn well it’s deliberately taking an innocent human life.  Of the people who say, “yes, it’s an innocent human life but I’m in favor of applying the death penalty to it because I think the mother’s wishes are more important than the baby’s right to live,” I can at least respect their intellectual integrity, even though I think they’re completely wrong.

Joe Biden publicly aligned himself with the tenets of the faith he’s professed for some time and admitted that life does begin at conception:

I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception.

This isn’t really news – he admitted it last year, too.  It’s obviously an issue he’s struggled with, as his “On the Issues” records indicate.  In 2007 on Meet the Press, he said,

Q: Do you believe that life begins at conception?
A: I am prepared to accept my church’s view. I think it’s a tough one. I have to accept that on faith. That’s why the late-term abortion ban, where there’s clearly viability.

So “viability” is evidently where he draws the line, but with the new medical technology, second trimester babies routinely survive premature birth.  What used to be miscarriages are now babies.  Which makes his statement from that same show more hypocritical:

Q: You supported the ban on partial-birth abortions or late-term abortions.

A: I did and I do.

And the Supreme Court came and basically upheld that ban, and you criticized the Supreme Court.

Q: They upheld the ban, and then they engaged in what we lawyers call dicta that is frightening. You had an intellectually dishonest rationale for an honest justification for upholding the ban. I know this is going to sound arcane–they blurred the distinction between the government’s role in being involved in the first day and the ninth month. They became paternalistic, talking about the court could consider the impact on the mother and keeping her from making a mistake. This is all code for saying, “Here we come to undo Roe v. Wade.” What they did is not so much the decision, the actual outcome of the decision, it’s what attended the decision that portends for a real hard move on the court to undo the right of privacy. That’s what I’m criticizing about the court’s decision.

Life begins at conception.  But it’s morally okay to purposely end that life if you feel like it when you do so early enough that the baby can’t survive without the mother.  Biden’s worried about intellectual dishonesty?  How does he not cut himself, shaving without a mirror?  Ed Morrissey notes that Biden’s position is a bit monstrous:

Nancy Pelosi tries deluding herself over the question of life; Biden just doesn’t give a damn.  Which is worse?