I had someone send me a message this morning that I just had to go see the video the Family Research Council has released concerning Barack Obama’s speech on Father’s Day where Senator Obama said: “We need fathers to recognize that their responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.” I’m not a real big fan of the FRC normally and disagree on a lot of their positions that seem to be more in line with President Bush than with traditional conservatism but I respected the person who sent it to me and checked it out.
The FRC’s response caught my attention enough to post it here:
The guy makes a good point.
If conception isn’t when life begins then you’re not a father yet. If a baby is not a human being at conception, how can you be a father? You need a child for that to happen. If you ran around claiming you were someone’s father and everybody knew you didn’t have any offspring (either produced or adopted) you’d be looked at as perhaps off your rocker.
Now, I’m sure the far-left will attack in their usual manner because it’s the Family Research Council and there’s genuine hatred on the far-left for that group. The more reasoned of those on the left in favor of aborting babies will likely come back with things like “he was just trying to get across the point that your responsibility does not end when you impregnate a woman.” I’d agree with that and it’s a very important point that needs to be made. (Although I do wonder why Sen. Obama gets praise for that kind of talk while Bill Cosby was condemned for the same message.)
Where we will differ is that I say that’s the case because at that point it’s a living child.
But the speech’s words themselves beg the question that I hope Sen. Obama will answer (but likely won’t because it was asked by a far-right conservative group): When did that child become his son if he was a father at conception?
There’s probably a speechwriter today who if they’re not demoted in the campaign pecking order is probably picking up lunch for the next month. And likely not McDonald’s either.
“The more reasoned of those on the left in favor of aborting babies…”
life, constantly wondering how to reconcile our stance against the death penalty with abortion or assisted-suicide; in a woman’s life, which neither you nor I will claim to have any insight to — and you reduce it to bumper-sticker hyperbole?
Save that BS for a James River pep rally…
And if you wish to discuss our next president’s nuance when it comes to a very difficult issue — NUANCE, an amazing concept, I know, considering we’ve been dealing with President “My Pet Goat” for the past seven years — then let’s discuss, by all means.
Or, you can go the route of the right and just drop clauses like you just dropped…
“in favor of aborting babies.”
Wow, now that I’ve digested that sentence about seven times, well, I gotta tell you what a jackass you sound like.
Josh, thanks for the intelligent and well thought out response.
The bottom line is that the issue of abortion isn’t as flowery as so many people like to put it. The responsibility and decision making should happen before conception. After conception, the man and the woman who participated have already started down the course of parenthood. No matter how hard a girl’s life is, destroying that life shouldn’t be called a choice. It’s not a choice after she’s given birth, no matter how prematurely, and it shouldn’t be a choice at 1 pound, or even 1 ounce.
This, like so many other issues today comes down to personal responsibility. You as a human being are not just an animal that brainlessly fornicates all over the place. You have to make decisions, and you have to live with the results of your decisions. Sex is not just a recreational activity like skiing. There are consequences. As a society we cannot allow people to end the life of others. When that action is taken purposefully and with forethought, we call it murder.