Warren asked each candidate at what point they believed a baby recieved human rights. McCain answered that he believed those rights were imparted at conception, and mentioned his 25 year pro-life record. Obama naturally didn't choose to highlight his extreme pro-choice record, and decided to answer the question like this:
human rights… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.And there you have it. Take it as it folks. Senator Obama is running for the highest office in the United States, and yet he feels that such a question is beyond his pay grade, even though he is already an employed legislator.
::postscript:: If we consider that Obama feels that such a distinction cannot be made by the judiciary or legislative bodies, then we must conclude that he feels that the question can be answered theologically by the Christianity which he professes allegiance to, and scientifically by the scientific world. Hence, since Christianity is clearly opposed to the abortion (I call upon the Didache and the philosophical and theological arguments advanced by the Catholic Church here), and 'science' has proved without question, for over 40 years, that separate, human life occurs at conception, we must admit that Obama is both a shitty Christian and unwilling to heed empirical evidence when it disagrees with him. And that my friends is one crummy candidate for president.
2 comments:
It's clear to me that Obama is unable to comment on the abortion issue from "a theological perspective or a scientific perspective" because, as he alludes to, he is not a theologian or a scientist.
He then goes on to give a lengthy response about the difficulties in resolving the abortion issue as a Christian and introduces new policies designed to reduce the number of abortions. But this cannot receive the same attention as "above my pay grade"
How four words from a 450 word response shows us the "real" Barack Obama is beyond my understanding.
The rest of this comment includes his response. It's much to read, so I understand why it's not easily assimilated into Reuter's articles or blog posts.
Source: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/Saddleback_16AUG2008.htm#baby
Warren: Let's deal with abortion. Forty million abortions since Roe v Wade. You know, as a pastor, I have to deal with this all the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue.
Forty million abortions -- at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?
Obama: Well, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with.
One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.
But point number two. I am -- I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade. And I come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion but because ultimately I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with these pastors or their spouses or their doctors and their family members.
So for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where I think we can find common ground; and by the way, I've now inserted this into the Democratic Party platform -- is, how do we reduce the number of abortions? Because the fact is is that, although we've had a President who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down. And that, I think, is something that we have to ...
[Warren: Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?]
Well, I am in favor, for example, of limits on late-term abortions if there is an exception for the mother's health. Now, from the perspective of those who, you know, are pro-life, I think they would consider that inadequate, and I respect their views. I mean, one of the things that I've always said is is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception -- and you are consistent in that belief -- then I can't argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you.
What I can do is say, are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies so that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions? And as an example of that, one of the things that I've talked about is, how do we provide the resources that allow women to make the choice to keep a child? You know, have we given them the health care that they need? Have we given them the support services they need? Have we given them the options of adoption that are necessary? That, I think, can make a genuine difference.
Stuart, I feel you man. But here's the thing - after Obama's now infamous comment, he then gives us the usual disingenuous pro-abortion response. That's what I mean about the real Obama revealing himself: he claims to want a new approach to politics, and then offers up the same old leftist rhetoric.
True, he is no scientist and no theologian, but you don't have to be either of those to have even a basic understanding of what Christian theology and science have to say about the rights of an infant.
Post a Comment