This could be one of the more frightening articles I have ever read. The radical skepticism concerning faith and human life is astonishing. Regarding faith he says, “Our system, unlike the Iranians’, is not meant to be so total: it depends on making many distinctions between private life, where we follow our conscience into our chapel, and our public life, where we seek to merge many different kinds of conscience in a common space. Our faith should not inform us in everything we do, or there would be no end to the religious warfare that our tolerant founders feared.”
He also compares Ryan’s stance to what an Iranian would say. He seems to be suggesting that faith is only for the church, and when you enter reality you leave faith behind. Of course, he wouldn’t be so quick to allow the same standard with regard to his worldview, which, made apparent by this article, he takes with him everywhere he goes. Another question is this: just what exactly does it look like to not allow your faith to impact your life? It’s called atheism, and once that happens, faith has disappeared entirely. If someone believes that life begins at conception, but does not oppose abortion, that’s called hypocrisy.
This leads to his next argument , regarding abortion, which is even worse: 1) Life may begin in some sense at conception. 2) We don’t know what sense. 3) For life to truly exist it needs to be conscience and thinking. 4) It’s too ambiguous so let’s just let the woman decide.
Guess logic gets thrown out the window along with faith. The thing is that we actually know a great deal about the life in the womb. Most importantly, it is just that, LIFE. Beans don’t have beating hearts, sir. What’s truly ambiguous is the absurd notion that life is defined by “conscience, thinking.” It is this type of argument set forth here that allows Peter Singer of Princeton to argue that a baby could rightly be aborted for a certain period of time AFTER birth. Here, anyone can read Mr. Singer’s position. If a baby is “defective” and the parents don’t want it, then kill it. It’s not yet a person. What if the baby is not defective, but the parents don’t want it? Well, it would be less wrong to kill that baby than an adult, but there are a lot of people who would want it so it would be wrong to kill it. Is that ambiguous Mr. Gopnik? Do you have a basis for opposing such an evil position? I don’t think you do.
He says it like this, “It is conscious, thinking life that counts, and where and exactly how it begins (and ends) is so complex a judgment that wise men and women, including some on the Supreme Court, have decided that it is best left, at least at its moments of maximum ambiguity, to the individual conscience (and the individual conscience’s doctor).”
So there ya go folks. It’s ambiguous so don’t worry about it. His next statement is truly amazing:
“The cost of simplifying this truth is immense cruelty—cruelty to the bean when, truly developed, it becomes a frightened teen-ager who is to be compelled by law to carry her unwished-for pregnancy through with all the trauma that involves.”
So, in essence, to not allow the murder of babies is cruel because one of those babies might grow up to carry an unwanted baby. I just had a beautiful baby boy, and statements like this I simply cannot fathom. This is a far cry from the Psalter’s wonderful declaration,
“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.” Psalm. 139:13-15