Conceiving Conception at Messiah

By Dr. Paul Kengor

...One of the most frustrating exchanges in the forum related to the question of conception—when human life begins. This is a significant question for these two candidates, given there is not much difference in their extremism on abortion. It is also significant that it was raised at a Christian college in Pennsylvania. The Christian aspect is obvious; as for Pennsylvania—outsiders should know that this is a pro-life state, where pro-life Democrats not only commonly exist but often get elected.

On this literal life-death issue, credit goes to Newsweek’s Jon Meacham, who co-hosted the forum, and did his homework. Meacham must have known that Mrs. Clinton has always carefully avoided this question. She understands the stakes of conceding that life begins at conception. As noted by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason, if the object in the womb is not a life begun at conception, then whatever one chooses to do with it is no concern. But once one acknowledges the object is human life, moral considerations completely change.

In my research on Mrs. Clinton, my closest lead into her thinking was this assertion by her husband in his 2004 memoirs: “Everyone knows life begins biologically at conception,” wrote Bill Clinton, the man with whom Hillary Clinton has had more discussions on more subjects than anyone else, including abortion. One would think “everyone” includes Senator Clinton. But then, Bill added a classic Clinton qualification: “Most people who are pro-choice understand that abortions terminate potential life.”

Note the words potential life. Alas, this was precisely Mrs. Clinton’s response at Messiah. “I believe that the potential for life begins at conception,” she explained, and then plunged into a defense of abortion. “But for me, it is also not only about a potential life…. And, therefore, I have concluded, after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, that our task should be, in this pluralistic, diverse life of ours in this nation, that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision…. I think abortion should remain legal.”

Clearly, Mrs. Clinton’s view of “pluralistic, diverse life” has limits.

Obama’s answer was even more ambiguous: “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? So, I don’t presume to know the answer to that question. What I know, as I’ve said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we’re having these debates.”

Basically, Obama concluded that in considering these questions during these debates, we should consider these questions during these debates—and that potential life is “extraordinarily powerful.” In response, the Messiah faithful erupted into applause, indubitably impressed.

In essence, neither of these would-be presidents professes any idea when life begins. In actuality, of course, both almost certainly believe life begins at conception. No doubt, any scientist at Harvard could have clued in Obama on this simple biological reality. And Hillary Clinton must have heard this somewhere at Yale.

The truth is that both candidates will not state the obvious on conception because of their positions on abortion. If they utter the self-evident truth, they undermine the “compassion” of their stance on abortion...

Click here to read full text.