In light of the act of terrorism committed at a Planned
Parenthood clinic last month in Colorado Springs, many have brought up the fact
that mainstream anti-choice rhetoric often galvanizes the extremists. This
rhetoric is frequently expressed by Republican political candidates, notably
including Ben Carson. His stance is especially alarming when considering the
fact that he’s lauded as the “reasonable” and “moderate” conservative option.
Carson is against same sex marriage, but enthusiastically supports
the sanctity of marriage between church and state. He has also been
consistently vocal about his anti-choice position. In an October interview on
NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he stated that he believes abortion should be illegal
even in the cases of rape and incest. Carson presents himself as guided by
even-handed logic and reason, but look at this quote from the interview: “I’m a
reasonable person and if people can come up with a reasonable explanation of
why they would like to kill a baby, I’ll listen.”
The above quote is a prime example of begging the question
(although it’s a statement, not a question). He frames it in a way that already
assumes certain factors—that abortion is “killing a baby”, and that people
seeking abortions are doing so because they “like” to terminate pregnancies. As
if they derive joy and fun from the experience. This is the type of assumption
that inflames anti-abortion fanatics to the point of wanting to murder doctors
and patients, because they see it as a genuine battle between good and evil.
As a person who has worked many years in the field of medicine
and science, Carson should be well aware that an early-stage embryo is not a
baby. Before it has a brain, it has no consciousness or subjective experience.
Before it has nerves, it cannot feel pain. It makes no sense to personify such
a pre-developed life form and to talk about it as if it experiences suffering.
Because doctors are aware of this, their only reasoning for defining an embryo
as a baby can be religious. This applies in Ben Carson’s case.
His religious ilk defends this rhetoric by citing Bible verses
from Psalms saying “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my
mother's womb.” Even purely within the context of that belief system, it can be
argued that this isn't defining embryos as babies. It's King David talking
about himself, not about all people. Additionally, Numbers 5:26-28 advises its
readers to carry out a procedure that will cause their wives to miscarry if
they suspect them of being pregnant with another man's offspring (“...If she
has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the
result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes
bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will
miscarry, and she will become a curse.”) This is from a recipe to deliberately induce
abortion. There are Old Testament passages in which “God” threatens to slice
open the bellies of pregnant women (Hosea 13:16). Thus people can't accurately
argue that the Bible forbids or even frowns upon ending the life of fetuses.
Some might respond to the passages about cutting open pregnant women with, “Well,
that's only under specific circumstances and only if ordered by God,” but that
sounds like obvious straw-grasping. Going on to say “thou shalt not kill” is
just talking in circles because no passage defines abortion as murder. Also,
how many Christians take that to its absolute literal and all-encompassing
conclusion? How many are vegetarians, for example? How many refuse to kill
animals under any circumstance (if “all life is sacred”)?
The above argument aside, there is no reason a
President or hypothetical President should be invoking religious rationale for
laws in a country that is supposed to operate on separation of church and
state. Ben Carson himself has acknowledged this in his explanation of why a
theocratic Muslim is not fit to be president. For this issue, though, he
doesn't seem to apply it to Christians.
The “Christian nation” he envisions may not include
zealots opening fire at Planned Parenthood clinics, but his rationale packs the
weight of their bullets. It’s time we start acknowledging the role that such
viewpoints play in these acts of violence.
