« Not 'The Asian Century', After All | Main | Obama Campaign Accuses McCain of Cheating; Andrea Mitchell Dutifully Carries Obama's Water »

Obama: Deciding when a baby gets human rights is "above my pay grade".

The smartest answer on abortion EVAH:

Here's the succinct version, narrowing it down to the good stuff:

Rick Warren: OK, now, um, let's deal with abortion. 40 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 com... complex issue. 40 million... uh, abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

Obama: Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.


Deciding when an unborn baby gets human rights is only one of the major points in deciding whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion. And considering how widely polarizing abortion is, I would think it would be important for the man who can undeniably have a huge impact on one of the biggest court rulings in the last century, Roe V. Wade, shouldn't that be something they have a firm answer on? To just brush it off, saying it's "above my pay grade", is beyond ridiculous.

That statement is Obama's way of dodging having to give an answer.

He knows his views on abortion are not in line with most Americans, even pro-abortion Americans. He's got an extremely radical position on abortion, including most recently a record that came to light where he voted against babies who survived abortions being allowed to live. He calls Margaret Sanger, the racist eugenicist founder of Planned Parenthood, one of his heroes. He's voted for partial-birth and late term abortions. He's got a 100% approval rating on abortion from NARAL and a 0% rating from the NRLC. He's voted against parental notification for minors to get out-of-state abortions (even though it made an exception for the health of the mother). He's a co-sponsor of the "Freedom of Choice" act, which would nullify all limitations on abortions. He's voted against the Hyde Amendment, which banned the use of taxpayer funding for abortions through Medicaid (so according to him, pro-lifers should still have to pay for women to get abortions -- nice.).

Those are Obama's positions on abortion.

And you know what? If that's what he supports, then it's what he supports. Abortion is a hot-button issue, and there are certainly some people who will look at the above as a benefit to his campaign, not a liability. Where he stands on the issue of abortion is not the problem in this particular instance, even though I greatly disagree with him. The problem here is that, in this video, he's being as ambiguous as possible because he doesn't want to get tied down to any particular stance. If he's talking to a bunch of Christians who are pro-life, he wants to be able to say he respects life. If he's talking to a roomful of feminists, he wants to be able to say he's pro-choice. And if he's talking to a bunch of undecided moderates, he wants to be able to say he can relate to them, too.

The problem is, the job title of President -- and even Senator -- means that you have to define where you stand, and especially on such polarizing issues. That's part of the job description. You can't be everything to everyone, a shocking concept to the Obamamessiah, I'm sure. His being pro-abortion will likely piss a lot of people off. If he was pro-life, it'd piss a lot of people off, too. You can't please everyone, and if you want to be a politician, you have to be able to take a stance on tough issues. It's not a lot of fun, but it's the way the game works.

It's pretty clear what Obama's position on abortion is, but with videos like this, he's clearly trying to hide it as much as possible. It's what he's done throughout this entire election. During the primary, he tried to align himself with the far left as much as possible. Now that he's got to win over the rest of the country, he's trying to make himself appear more moderate. And so he's got to try to hide his radical views. Fortunately for the Obamamessiah, the mainstream media isn't going to hold him to anything whatsoever.

Unfortunately for the Obamamessiah, the rest of us will. And if defining your stance on a hot-button issue is "above your pay grade", Mr. Obama, then the Presidency is above your pay grade, too.

Hat Tip: Hot Air


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/31022.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama: Deciding when a baby gets human rights is "above my pay grade".:

» Wizbang linked with Drop-Kick Him, Jesus

Comments (107)

Statistics show that when R... (Below threshold)
Hilary Smith:

Statistics show that when Republicans are in power, abortion rates increase. When Republicans are in power poverty rates also increase. Abortion and poverty are inextricably linked. If you don't like abortion, vote for the candidate whose policies are more likely to bring working-class income standards back up to where they once were. If you want to reduce violence in the womb, vote for Obama because he is the candidate most likely make parenthood affordable again. A McCain presidency will mean more poverty and more abortions for the working class.

HillaryWhat a croc... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Hillary

What a crock. You are at least named appropriately.

Here are some statistics to... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Here are some statistics to stick in your OBama pipe and smoke

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

These clearly show you have no clue what you are talking about. Of course you are choosing to vote for Obama so that was a given anyway.

BTW some more reading that ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW some more reading that shows you are lost and truly clueless

TRY DOING RESEARCH.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-01-16-abortion-rates_N.htm

"The abortion rate in the USA fell to its lowest point in more than 30 years, and the actual number of abortions also continues a steady decline, according to the first new comprehensive data in five years, released today.
"
"The number of abortions, which peaked in 1990 with 1.6 million, dropped to an estimated 1.2 million in 2005. That's 8% fewer than 2000.

•The abortion rate, which is the proportion of pregnancies that end in abortion, dropped by 9% to 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15-44, in 2005. The peak -- 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women -- was in both 1980 and 1981. In 1974, a year after abortion became legal, the rate was 19.3.

•The number of abortion providers in the USA also dropped to 1,787, representing a 2% decline from 2000.

•Just over one in five pregnancies in 2005 (22%) resulted in abortion, down from one in four pregnancies (25%) in 2000.
"

And

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Which shows a steady decline in abortion percentages since 1980.
Along with other abortion facts.

Also<a href="http:... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Also

http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html

"Abortions rising under Bush? Not true. How that false claim came to be - and lives on."
"Politicians from Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Howard Dean have recently contended that abortions have increased since George W. Bush took office in 2001.
This claim is false. It's based on an an opinion piece that used data from only 16 states. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of 43 states found that abortions have actually decreased. Update, May 26: The author of the original claim now concedes that the Guttmacher study is "significantly better" than his own."

"Stassen offered his article as evidence that Bush's economic policies were driving pregnant women to abortion. And although he opposes abortion, his claim was soon picked up and repeated uncritically by the other side - supporters of abortion rights. In a speech to family-planning providers in New York on January 24, 2005 , Sen. Hillary Clinton recounted decreases in the abortion rate that occurred in her husband's administration, then lamented that the situation had changed. She repeated exactly some of the figures that Stassen had given in his Houston Chronicle article.

Clinton : But unfortunately, in the last few years, while we are engaged in an ideological debate instead of one that uses facts and evidence and common sense, the rate of abortion is on the rise in some states . In the three years since President Bush took office, 8 states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and four saw a decrease (4.3% average), so we have a lot of work still ahead of us.

Clinton was careful not to state flatly that abortions were increasing nationally . She spoke only of "some states" in which the rate had increased. But she invited her listeners to conclude that the national trend to fewer abortions had reversed itself since Bush took office.

And in fact a few days later, in an interview on NBC's Meet the Press on January 30, 2005 , Sen. John Kerry claimed that abortions were up, period:

Kerry: And do you know that in fact abortion has gone up in these last few years with the draconian policies that Republicans have....

A Kerry spokesman confirmed at the time to FactCheck.org that Kerry was relying on the Stassen article for his information.

Finally, as recently as May 22, 2005 , Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean also asserted on NBC News' Meet the Press:

Dean:You know that abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was President ?

Dean's "statistic" went unchallenged by moderator Tim Russert, so millions of viewers probably got the impression that Dean's very specific 25 percent figure was correct. But Dean was wrong -- and by a wide margin.

We asked the Democratic National Committee repeatedly where Dean got his 25 percent figure, but we got no response. Even if Stassen's estimate of 52,000 additional abortions were correct, that would figure to an increase of less than 4 percent. And in any case the rate is going down, not up, according to the most authoritative figures available.

Cherry-picking Data

A close reading of Stassen's article makes clear that he didn't even pretend to have comprehensive national data on abortion rates. He said he looked at data from 16 states only -- and didn't even name most of them.

Stassen said that in the four states that had already posted statistics for three full years of Bush's first term, he found that abortion was up. Twelve more states had posted statistics for two years of Bush's term - 2001 and 2002 - and here the picture was mixed. According to Stassen, "Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6 percent average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3 percent average)." A version of the piece in the Houston Chronicle reported instead that four saw a decrease with a 4.3 percent average.

So Stassen was projecting findings onto the entire country from 12 states that he said had showed an increase and 5 (or maybe 4) that he said had shown a decrease. That leaves a total of 34 other states for which Stassen had no data whatsoever.

Furthermore, Stassen is contradicted by one of the very organizations whose data he cites. The only primary source of data that Stassen cites specifically in the article is the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization that conducts a periodic survey of all known abortion providers, which numbered nearly 2,000 at last count. Guttmacher's statistics are widely used and respected by all sides in the abortion debate. It is the only organization to compile and publish national abortion-rate data other than the federal Center for Disease Control. CDC's official statistics, however, run only through 2001, so they shed no light on what has happened since Bush took office.

And Guttmacher - as we shall see - now says abortion rates have decreased since Bush took office. And that's based on data from 43 states, not just 16.
The Facts

The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher analyzed available government data "as an interim measure until another provider census can be conducted" according to a news release. The interim study analyzed data from 43 states determined to have reliable state reporting systems.

What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide - by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which is the number of women having abortions relative to the total population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That's not as rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a decrease nonetheless.

We give much weight to Guttmacher's analysis. Their figures are widely used and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights advocates. Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and Stassen cites them himself as the source for the number of abortions in 2000.

Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti-abortion policies look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and describes its mission as being" to protect the reproductive choice of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world." Had Stassen's numbers proven accurate, the Institute "would have reported and widely publicized a rise in abortion rates," said Darabi. But facts are facts.

Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can't substantiate his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the Guttmacher study and says it is "significantly better" than his own earlier effort:

Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute) bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort

"

ANd here is a nice factoid.

http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/decline.htm
"Why the drop in abortions?
The AGI study authors, Stanley Henshaw and Jennifer Van Vort, list three possible reasons:
The number of unintended pregnancies may have decreased.
Attitudes may have changed toward less acceptance of abortion or more acceptance of childbirth outside marriage.
Abortion services may have become less accessible.
Some conclusions
The declining number of providers "suggests that services are becoming more difficult to obtain," especially in non-metropolitan areas.
Decreases in the number of providers "have been especially steep among hospitals".
Some of the decline is due to the high cost of abortions in hospitals.
There has been an increase in the concentration of services in specialized abortion clinics, where 69% of all abortions are now performed. "Thus, abortion services are becoming even more isolated from the mainstream of medical care, leaving physicians who provide these services vulnerable to stigmatization within the medical community."
"

So in short the best way to lower the number of abortions seems to be to make it less accessible. Gee who would have thunk it.

So in short HIllary you are DRINKING The DNC KOOL AID. Was it Grape or Cherry?

BTW Hillary5 minut... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW Hillary

5 minutes of Google = You being PWNED.

Have a nice day.

The main stream media has s... (Below threshold)

The main stream media has steadfastly refused to ask Obama any difficult questions leaving the public in the dark regarding his true positions. It is ironic that it took a pastor to finally ask those difficult question in a venue that afforded the American public a glimpse into Obama's underlying values. It is disappointing that when those difficult questions were aired, they were above Obama's pay grade. What a clear demonstration of lack of judgment!

I'm personally prolife, alt... (Below threshold)

I'm personally prolife, although I recognize that any overturning of Roe v, Wade would just result in abortion being banned in just a few mainly conservative Southern states, while remaining legal most other states. This is hardly any answer to unwanted children, poverty, unplanned pregnancies, or the moral issues associated with abortion. So I oppose the overturn of Row v. Wade, while being personally prolife because it will really resolve very little at all. Abortions, poverty, unwanted pregnancies, etc will still be around if Roe v. wade was gone. It's not the answer.

As far as Mr. Obama's performance yesterday with the evangelical educational event sponsored By Pastor Rick Warren, Obama knows that he will still lose the evangelical vote to McCain because of the single abortion issue, but still gave some honest opinions on the subject. But McCain will still win the evangelical vote because of the abortion issue, despite his infidelity during his first marriage, the drug addiction and charity theft by his wife, or his racist voting record, or his racist or sexist sense of humor that finds jokes about rape funny or having a former soft porn movie producer as his main economic advisor, or that McCain is probably even more pro-war than even Bush, etc. Many evangelicals are unfortunately single issue voters and seem to miss the forest for the trees in judging the overall character of the candidates because of single issues like abortion which cloud their weighing of the overall plus and minus of the candidates.

McCain is enough of a longtime politician, that he managed to go for every cheap applause line yesterday with this socially conservative group of voters, while avoiding the truth that his own moral values are nothing like theirs whatsoever. McCain is a crude and crass former Navy man, who survived his five years as a POW because he is such a tough old bird. Few evangelical use the "F" word like McCain when they get mad. But McCain did everything possible to paint a false image to these voters that he's really one of them. If evangelical voters aren't wise enough to know any different about John McCain, well, then they deserve him, and to disappointed by him in office once he can let his guard down and be himself.

Controversial Pastor John Hagee of Cornerstone Church had a quote I always really liked. I'll paraphrase here: Anyone can act civil for an hour in public, when there's actually a wild man in a cage back home.

Obama is at least always a decent family man, and other than a struggle with quiting smoking, he has few real vices or faults. But he just doesn't agree with most evangelicals on the abortion issue, so will lose most of their votes.
depp=true
notiz=Broadbrushing will get you every time.

That's not the comment I wr... (Below threshold)

That's not the comment I wrote above, what gives?

From all indications, the... (Below threshold)
irongrampa:

From all indications, the Presidency is above his pay grade, also.

If Supreme Court justices m... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

If Supreme Court justices make more than the President (they might--and they should), then his statement would be 100% accurate, non?

HyperbolistThey do... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Hyperbolist

They dont.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/01/news/newsmakers/salary/
President - $400k
vp - $208,100
Cabinet - $180,100
Supreme court justice - $208,100
House and Senate - $162,100

In short, Obama took a dive on the question because he didnt want to answer it.

Cassey called it on the money in her article.

In short, Obama did answer ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

In short, Obama did answer the question correctly. It is above his pay grade, and will remain so as he wont be getting elected. At least he seems to know some of his limits and he clearly knows he doesnt belong in the White House.

I still give Hillary (Clinton - not Kool Aid drinker above) a 50 50 shot at being on the ticket.


"If Supreme Court justices ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"If Supreme Court justices make more than the President (they might--and they should), then his statement would be 100% accurate, non?"

Your statement (and Obama's) are wrong in so many ways.

a. By yours (and apparantly Obama's) standard Bill Gates should have more authority on deciding American political and social issues than the President and all the Supreme Court Justices put together.

b. Supreme COurt Justices decide one thing and one thing only. The constitionality of the case before them. In short, if a case never reaches them they have no input on that case (other than other Precedents of law).

What "gave," Mr. Hooson, we... (Below threshold)

What "gave," Mr. Hooson, were your vowels. Someone in a position of authority (it wasn't me; I suspect it was Maggie, our comments editor; the footnote seems her style) looked at your several paragraphs of rambling, narcissistic BS and attempts to steer the conversation in ways you'd prefer it to go, instead of discussing Obama's position on abortion, and said "no, that's not gonna happen."

Obama's quite the family man. We saw that when he invited that TV gossip show into his home to film him, his wife, and kids. Then, later, he changed his mind and said his kids wouldn't be making any more public appearances. I think that was about three weeks before they all posed for the cover of People magazine.

But back on topic: yes, Senator Obama, deciding matters like this are above your pay grade. And, god willing, they will remain above your pay grade come November.

J.

I didn't know--and am not p... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I didn't know--and am not particularly interested in--how much a Supreme Court justice makes. My point was that that issue is not within the jurisdiction of the President. Separation of powers and such. Your remark about Bill Gates missed the point by a pretty wide margin. I think working in government would be a waste of the man's talents anyway.

Jay, I do feel strongly abo... (Below threshold)

Jay, I do feel strongly about the abortion issue as I classify myself as prolife but I recognize that any overturn of Roe v. Wade will not address the issues of poverty, unwanted pregnancy, or the moral issues related to this issue. Abortion would still remain legal in most states outside of the most conservative of "Red" states, if Roe v. Wade was overturned. That is hardly an answer to abortion, yet most abortion critics fail to see this. I was raised Roman Catholic, and attended religious schools for much of my life, so I'm no fan of abortion because of my religious background.

An overturn of Roe v. Wade is a key issue among evangelical voters but will really change very little, but few abortion foes seem willing to accept that hard fact. And the state by state problems rather than a national standard will be a complicated situation. State legislatures will become all bottled up with constant attempts to change abortion laws. Some states might actually become even more liberal on the issue and allow later term abortions or partial birth abortions than federally allowed by the Supreme Court if it's up to each state to decide rather than a more national set of standards. This local community standards idea didn't work out very well with community by community obscenity laws, and will be even worse with local abortion rules. Objective national standards are far better and less complicated legally.

I certainly do not agree with Mr. Obama on this issue. But he did make a good attempt to be honest about his genuine opinions to a group of voters in which he might only capture a little more than a quarter of the vote. I'll give him that credit. He didn't pander on this issue for votes.

Mr. McCain did say a few things that I liked as well. However, he also went for the way too easy applause lines with this socially conservative line of voters.

But many of these evangelical voters are single issue voters such as on abortion or opposed to Gay marriage. Yet they are not voting based on some decision that they actually would make for themselves, but decisions that they choose to make for others which seems very convoluted sort of reasoning to me.

I always think of the Judds when I think about the dual morality of many Christian evangelicals. Both the mother and one daughter are frequent guests on religious programs and hold up one set of values, yet the mother and one daughter both became pregnant outside of wedlock. Unfortunately the net effect of this is hardly any different than what many evangelicals consider to be "living like the Devil".

If you want to know what real BS is Jay, it's those who profess faith and values and want to impose their morality on others, but can't even live up to those standards themselves like the Judds have been known for. But I continue to enjoy their music, regardless of this nonsense.

Lets see"hyperboli... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Lets see

"hyperbolist:
If Supreme Court justices make more than the President (they might--and they should), then his statement would be 100% accurate, non?
"

and then
"I didn't know--and am not particularly interested in--how much a Supreme Court justice makes. My point was that that issue is not within the jurisdiction of the President. Separation of powers and such. Your remark about Bill Gates missed the point by a pretty wide margin. "

I have to say HUH. Sorry I dont speak Obamaese.

a. You are the one who mentioned how much supreme court justices make. (not a figure but the idea of how much they make)

b. You said the same thing about the President

c. You then say that money has nothing to do with the discussion.

d. You made no mention of jurisdicition in your first statement.

e. You totally deny you were talking about money.

Now with A, B, C, D and E in mind one has to think.

a. You figure whatever the pay level was has to do with decisions made by government officials. A somewhat valid assumption since no government official makes more than the President but you arent even smart enough to know that (or even bother to look it up).

b. You were then instructed that your invalide argument was umm invalid.

c. You try to then sidetrack and talk about jurisdiction when that wasn't mentioned in any way shape or form in your first statement at all.

d. I already stated what the role of juristiciton would have in the matter of the abortion debate.

e. Even with the "constitutionality" of the matter decided either prolife or proabortion that still DOESNT answer the question that Obama was asked. That question being
"At what point does a baby get human rights in your view? "

f. So in short Obama doesnt even profess to be qualified be able to GIVE HIS VIEW on something which he has VOTED ON numerous times.

g. In short sir, you fail and your attempt to provide cover for Obama failed as miserably as his answer in the debate.

"I think working in government would be a waste of the man's talents anyway.
"

At last we agree on something. Maybe he is talented enough to be a dog catcher and be able to give an opinion about his work then.

I thought the same question... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

I thought the same question format was quite telling. Obama gave political/lawyer spin answers while McCain gave straightforward and clear answers. Claiming he was giving nuance answers is just B.S. I doubt anyone could come away from Obama answers with any clearly define position then he hates Bush or having to read a great deal into what you thought he meant.

The problem is, the job ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The problem is, the job title of President -- and even Senator -- means that you have to define where you stand, and especially on such polarizing issues. That's part of the job description.

The job description of President is not to predefine where you stand on every issue. It's to hire/appoint smart people and then listen to them.

"The job description of Pre... (Below threshold)
Sues:

"The job description of President is not to predefine where you stand on every issue. It's to hire/appoint smart people and then listen to them."

Of course, but why would I want to vote for a President who would hire/appoint smart people who would tell him/her just what the President wants to hear.

In other words....the President will hire/appoint those who see things similar to how he/she sees them.

If a candidate believe in abortion without any restrictions then I'm not going to be willing to vote for them. Of course I balance that out with the rest of the beliefs the candidate has, but you get the point.

In answer to Warren's quest... (Below threshold)

In answer to Warren's question, "At what point does a baby get human rights?" Obama avoided a direct answer, saying that decision is above his "pay grade." In truth, however, in his support of late-term abortions, he has already decided that a baby has no rights while in the womb. And in voting against prohibiting doctors and nurses from allowing babies who survive abortions to die unattended, he has decided that babies sometimes have no human rights even after birth.

Obama is clearly uncomfortable defending his views in front of audiences that are not rabid leftist or unthinking fans. The politician who says he's a "strong supporter of reproductive rights" comes up with euphemisms like that only to keep people from knowing he thinks it's perfectly acceptable to let die a baby that "inadvertently" survives an "abortion run afoul."

From Obama's perspective, O.J. Simpson did not commit any murders - he merely performed two very, very, very, very late-term abortions.

Start asking Obama some tough questions (find them at www.colony14.net) and he'll fold like a cheap wallet.

The question was "... (Below threshold)
retired military:

The question was

"At what point does a baby get human rights IN YOUR VIEW? "

In other words in his opinion. Obama basically said that he cant even form an opinion on this issue without consulting someone with a higher paygrade.

Does anyone really want a President that won't even give HIS OWN VIEW on something about which he has voted on legislately?

For the liberals reading this thread that was a rhetorical question. We already know that your answer is yes.

I'm sorry, but my initial c... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I'm sorry, but my initial comment was only meant to imply that his remark about pay grade might have been a roundabout way of deferring to other people's judgment on the issue, as would be appropriate. I had no idea how much Supreme Court justices make, but figured it would be more than that. Again, I don't care--he's a Senator trying to become President, not a Supreme Court judge or a professor of bioethics. There are thoughtful people who understand the issue better than him, or McCain, or you or I. I think deferring to them is a pretty reasonable way of responding to a loaded question.

Jay, I do feel str... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
Jay, I do feel strongly about the abortion issue as I classify myself as prolife but I recognize that any overturn of Roe v. Wade will not address the issues of poverty, unwanted pregnancy, or the moral issues related to this issue.

The Roe v. Wade ruling didn't address issues of poverty, unwanted pregnancy or the moral issues related to the issue either.

The Supreme Court has a narrow set of guidelines it can follow in deciding a case. Roe v Wade is already widely considered to be an extremely flawed ruling by normal standards, but, even as such, was never intended to solve the issues listed here.

Obama gave political/lawyer spin answers while McCain gave straightforward and clear answers.

I would agree with this.

Obama was trying to finesse the issue and it failed. If, in fact, he never had a chance to "get" the voters he was speaking to (as claimed earlier) then it was a foolish thing to do. Why risk alienating your base with a wishy-washy answer to appease people you are not likely to win over?

There are thoughtf... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
There are thoughtful people who understand the issue better than him, or McCain, or you or I. I think deferring to them is a pretty reasonable way of responding to a loaded question.

I believe who he was trying to defer to was God.

Problem is that he answered the question he probably expected to be asked rather than the question that he was asked. Anyone of us can reasonable respond to the question asked:

At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

Obama was a Constitutional law professor. It wasn't a hard question (or shouldn't have been) in the form that it was asked.

I believe that Obama expected (heard) a slighly different question and answered that.

I think you're right. Taken... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I think you're right. Taken literally, the question should be a simple matter of referencing the law.

I met a new little person t... (Below threshold)
Tammy:

I met a new little person today. His name is Jonah and he is 12 days old. His mama is the daughter of a friend of mine. She is not married, didn't intend to get pregnant, and had lots of anxiety over rearing a child by herself. She chose life. She can't believe how much she loves him. She could have chosen another course which might have been easier, but she didn't. He's such a blessing to her and he's very loved.

Also tonight, I attended a baby shower for a baby born 6 weeks too early. Baby Andrea nearly didn't make it. She will be home hopefully within the next week, and she may come home with a heart monitor. Her parents are so proud and love her so much.

Tim Tebow, star quarterback for the Florida Gators, is a handsome young man and stellar athlete. He almost became a statistic too due to some misguided doctor advising his mother to abort him. Even though Florida kicked our Tennessee Volunteer hineys, I couldn't help but be impressed with that young man.

I wish Obama could meet these people and explain to them why deciding when life begins is "above his pay grade." That's such a cop-out. God regards us while we are yet unborn, and we should likewise show respect to these tiniest people. Yes, they are real people.

From the Pope..."The Magist... (Below threshold)
mp85226:

From the Pope..."The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature [as to the time of ensoulment], but it constantly affirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion."

I guess it's above his pay grade as well

It wasn't a hard questio... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It wasn't a hard question (or shouldn't have been) in the form that it was asked.

Yes, it is a hard question. The problem is that the voters just want a simplistic pandering answer.

McCain gave the answer to placate his constituency, but it was a disingenuous answer. There are a whole slew of "human rights" that are not afforded to a zygote, nor would, I suspect, McCain propose that they be. If a woman causes a miscarriage through her own irresponsible behavior (drinking, etc.), would McCain have her arrested? If not, then clearly he does not believe there were "human rights" being violated.

In other words, it's a hard answer, and one that doesn't fit every situation. And anyone who claims to have the easy answer is a liar.

"I think deferring to them ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"I think deferring to them is a pretty reasonable way of responding to a loaded question. "

What loaded question? They were asking HIS OPINION. Thus the words "IN YOUR VIEW"

It isnt hard to give an opinion especially
a. when you knew a question like this was coming.

b. You know that it is a hot bed (shall we say so radioactive he didnt want to touch it) issue of this election.

c. He has voted on the subject of abortion NUMEROUS TIMES.

"I think you're right. Taken literally, the question should be a simple matter of referencing the law."

Taken LITERALLY the question was "IN YOUR VIEW"

Are you blind or dont you understand English well enough to understand a 3 word phrase.

Again you do a LOUSY job of covering for your man Obama.

--------------------

"Yes, it is a hard question."

No actually it is a VERY easy question for MILLIONS of Americans.

Politicians try to give the NONanswer to get them the most votes. It is only a hard question when you dont want to give a STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWER.
----------------------

In short, Obama has to defer his OPINION to someone else who gets paid more (whoever that is?) on an issue he has dealt with NUMEROUS times in his political career.

McCain (whether you think his answer was pandering or not, and whether you think his answer was honest or not) GAVE AN ANSWER.

Giving an opinion ISNT ROCKET SCIENCE. Opinions are like armpits. Everyone generally has at least 1 and some of the are smellier than others.

"The problem is that the voters just want a simplistic pandering answer. "

Actually I have to agree with you on this one. IMO most voters would rather be pandered too than told the truth. At least for the educated voters they can generally tell the difference between the two and vote appropriately. I dont think many Obama supporters fit in this latter category.


"I guess it's above ... (Below threshold)
retired military:


"I guess it's above his pay grade as well"

http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/centrodibioetica.htm


This was talking about in vitro embryos which is not exactly the same thing as discussed above but is relatively close.

However, that being said there is the following

"This is why, the "Declaration on Procured Abortion" (1974) of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says: "Moreover, it is not up to biological sciences to make a definitive judgement on questions which are properly philosophical and moral, such as the moment when a human person is constituted or the legitimacy of abortion. From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. 'He too is a man who will be a man' (Tertullian, Apologeticum, IX,8)" (n.13).

This position is confirmed by the recent Instruction, Donum Vitae: "The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable...Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in this bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception, and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life" (1,I)
"

It is easy to take one line out and not give it any context at all. The Catholic Church has always stated that life begins at conception. It (the Church) has not wavered from that opinion.

So in short reread the BOLD print and you have your answer from the Church.

Shit dude, relax. I'm not c... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Shit dude, relax. I'm not covering for anyone. Perhaps he should have had some prepared sound byte like McCain obviously did, but he didn't. His response was perfectly reasonable, unless you would prefer that he lie and give an answer that he didn't know to be true.

Tammy--nobody likes abortions. Perhaps it would be worth examining why your country has so many compared to other countries that also permit it.

By the way, Brian's quote s... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

By the way, Brian's quote showed that the Pope doesn't have an answer to this question either, so you pointing out that they have a pragmatic position on the legality of it is neither here nor there.

Considering the fact that O... (Below threshold)

Considering the fact that Obama "knew" the Surge wouldn't work, and, even in hindsight, would be against it now, I'd say any job that requires decisiveness is above his pay grade.

I can just hear it now,"Look folks,I am not the decider! And I will not decide what's best for America! Now,do ya mind if I finish my waffle?"

"His response was perfectly... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"His response was perfectly reasonable, unless you would prefer that he lie and give an answer that he didn't know to be true. "

Once again you carry the water.

His response was crap because the question asked (again for those not paying attention) IN YOUR VIEW"

Sure he could lie about his opinion but umm at least he could GIVE his opinion.

When you GIVE YOUR OPINION, it is JUST THAT, YOUR OPINION. Even if your opinion is wrong, and there are millions whose opinion fall on all sides of this debate, it is STILL YOUR OPINION.

Obama answered he will have to defer HIS OPINION to someone with a higher paygrade.

Again, laughable at best.

But hey, it worked for him, maybe you should try the same.

As for the Pope, he stated several times that life starts at conception. It isnt that hard a concept but I guess some would rather aburgate THEIR OPINION to someone else. It relieves them of having to FORM an opinion and therefore any conscious objections to something one way or another.

Sorta the way you do with Obama's answers.

Hyperbolist, my hypothesis ... (Below threshold)
Tammy:

Hyperbolist, my hypothesis about why there are so many abortions is that like Rome, American has become rotten from the inside. We're our own worst enemies in this country due to personal moral decline. No one feels shame about things they should feel ashamed of. The average age of the first sexual encounter is 14.9 years of age. Obama expressed that he didn't want his daughters "punished" with a baby. Apparently that's a widely held opinion; that somehow it's the unborn's fault--not the individuals who created him or her.

No, in this country we value the shallow, dingbat heiress whose only claim to fame is that she made a grainy, home porn movie. Other than that, she has no life skills. We glorify such vapid stupidity as Flava Flave's Flava of Love, and Tila Tequila's Shot at Love by considering them valid forms of entertainment. There would be too many other things to mention here and time and space just won't allow for it, but you get my drift...

(Note to self: do NOT sp... (Below threshold)

(Note to self: do NOT speak authoritatively on abortion and statistics when "retired military" is around. I get my ass handed to me regularly enough.)

J.

Brian and Hyperbolist:... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Brian and Hyperbolist:

At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

I see that both of you have a problem with the question asked.

Why?

Warren DID NOT when a fetus gets rights, he asked when a BABY gets rights.

So ALL your discussion of what the Pope thinks about abortion or when a fetus is viable, etc, is irrelevant to discussion of the question that he was asked.

He was also asked in your view so by definition HIS opinion was the one being sought.

So let's review:

Why is the question difficult again?

He could have stated what his definition of when a baby becomes a baby instead of a fetus as a preface to the question.

In general once born alive, whatever-you-may-have-called-it before, is called a "baby".

What is so hard about saying THAT?

Could it be that Obama is AFRAID to discuss the issue since he has, in the past, agreed with the practice of allowing a baby born alive after an unsuccessful abortion to die without treatment?

If he won't protect that child, could it be possible that he also agrees with a former NYT op-ed whose author advocated that parents of disabled children born alive should have a window of opportunity after that birth to end their lives and it not be called murder?

The question may have been difficult for someone with no guts, but, for the vast majority of people it was easy.

If you don't think it is a "baby" before birth, then you say THAT. That defines who you - in YOUR VIEW - thinks is a "baby".

If you think all human beings are created equally, then a baby gets human rights when it becomes a baby. You say THAT.

ONLY IF YOU DON'T THINK THAT EVERYONE IS CREATED EQUALLY do you have a problem with the question as it was asked.

Hyper are you genuinely stu... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Hyper are you genuinely stupid or do you work at it? Poor people cannot afford abortions that is why the poor breed poor. The middle class and wealthy use abortion as a birth control device. On topic now: Obama's whole life is above his pay grade. ww

Maybe Obama could have answ... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Maybe Obama could have answered the question better if asked, "At what point did your children get human rights in your view?"

"I'm not covering for anyone."

The following sure sounds like it. You spent time defending his non-answer by first implying that McCain lied and then, well, covering for Obama...

"Perhaps he should have had some prepared sound byte like McCain obviously did, but he didn't."

Are you saying, this couldn't possibly be McCain's opinion?

"His [Obama's] response was perfectly reasonable, unless you would prefer that he lie and give an answer that he didn't know to be true."

He was asked his OPINION. Not scientific fact. Is this a roundabout way of saying McCain lied?

You seem to be having a hard time understanding the definition of opinion.

Obama is clearly pro-choice... (Below threshold)

Obama is clearly pro-choice, and supports infanticide -- letting a living baby from a botched abortion die. He voted for infanticide while a legislator in Chicago and voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He is a Democrat, the party who believes in abortion up through the ninth month of pregnancy, long past the viable stage.

Why didn't he answer the question clearly?

Taking aside the always touchy question of abortion, do you want a President who won't stand by his principles?

McCain (whether you thin... (Below threshold)
Brian:

McCain (whether you think his answer was pandering or not, and whether you think his answer was honest or not) GAVE AN ANSWER.
...

Sure he could lie about his opinion but umm at least he could GIVE his opinion.

So that's your test? Give a definitive answer, even if it's a lie, and even if you believe there is no definitive answer?

When you GIVE YOUR OPINION, it is JUST THAT, YOUR OPINION. Even if your opinion is wrong, and there are millions whose opinion fall on all sides of this debate, it is STILL YOUR OPINION.

Except when your opinion is that it's a hard issue and there is no One Right Answer. Apparently that's not a sufficiently conclusive opinion to allow you to pigeonhole someone in your black and white view of the world.

If it's such an easy issue,... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If it's such an easy issue, why do so many on the right have trouble answering the question, "if abortion were illegal, what should the penalty be for a woman who gets one anyway or induces a miscarriage?"

They don't like hard questi... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

They don't like hard questions.

Hyper are you genuinely stupid or do you work at it? Poor people cannot afford abortions that is why the poor breed poor. The middle class and wealthy use abortion as a birth control device. On topic now: Obama's whole life is above his pay grade. ww

Interesting sociological hypothesis, Willie. I like the data you use to support it.

How come people in Scandinavia and Canada and other less religious countries have fewer abortions?

If you people cared about limiting the number of abortions in the United States, you would address the underlying causes. As that's an academic question, it's perfectly understandable why most of you (Tammy is one exception thus far) would rather set up false moral dichotomies and demand that Obama give his 'opinion' in a way that would allow you to heap further scorn upon him rather than accept his response, which was a characteristically inarticulate way of saying "I don't know". How is "I don't know" not a valid answer to a hard question, to which you do not yourselves know the answer?

<a href="http://ww... (Below threshold)
Brian:
Bush asked Rice and his longtime communications adviser, Karen Hughes, whether he should attack Iraq... ...

Bush said he did not remember asking the question of his father, former president George H.W. Bush...
...
"You know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to," Bush said.

So the question of whether to attack Iraq is above Bush's pay grade?

"How is "I don't know" not ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"How is "I don't know" not a valid answer to a hard question, to which you do not yourselves know the answer?
"

Hyper, Exactly. If he had answered, in my view I have not decided exactly when.... Then he would have at least given a definitive answer.

Instead he punted, clearly and obviously. Despite your attempts to provide cover for him he showed himself to be a coward when having to answer a hard question.

----------
"Sure he could lie about his opinion but umm at least he could GIVE his opinion.

So that's your test? Give a definitive answer, even if it's a lie, and even if you believe there is no definitive answer?


No that is not my test. My test is whether he has enough cajones to answer the question. Even if that answer is "in my view I havent made a decision on that matter yet". That is HIS job. My job is to decide whether I believe him or not. Or in other words TO GIVE MY VIEWPOINT ON WHAT HE SAID AND NOT WAIT FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE UP MY MIND FOR ME.

If he had said in my opinion THERE IS NO DEFINITE ANSWER then we wouldnt be having this discussion because there is no harm IMO in saying I DONT KNOW. After all we are human and most of us DONT KNOW everything. We do have OPINIONS unless of course you are Obama in which case you wait for somebody who makes more money than you do to tell you what to think. Hey it was HIS WORDS not mine.


"Except when your opinion is that it's a hard issue and there is no One Right Answer. Apparently that's not a sufficiently conclusive opinion to allow you to pigeonhole someone in your black and white view of the world. "

How can there be a WRONG answer when you were asked IN YOUR VIEW. Sure you could be mistaken, wrong in your VIEW, or beliefs, (or folks could believe that you are), but THEY ARE YOUR BELIEFS and not someone WHO MAKES MORE MONEY THAN YOU.


How hard is it for you lefties to UNDERSTAND A SIMPLE PRINCIPAL. You are ESPOUSING your VIEWS on the subject of his answer. I DONT SEE YOU SAYING. I umm cant give you MY VIEW on this because it is ABOVE MY PAY GRADE!!!!.

See how WEAK that answer is when applied to other facets of life.

--------------

"So the question of whether to attack Iraq is above Bush's pay grade? "

You are making FALSE conclusions. It is Bush's pay grade to MAKE THE DECISION. It is also his CHOICE whether to ask other's OPINION in order to REACH HIS DECISION. Obama is basically doing something similar to what Bush did prior to the lead up of the war. He is asking for someone who MAKES MORE MONEY THAN HIM (again his words NOT MINE) to give him an opinion.

If you had asked Bush, "in YOUR VIEW do we need to go to war with Iraq" (before we did so) he would have probably said we are weighing all alternatives. NOTICE OBAMA DIDNT DO THAT. Obama punted to someone making MORE MONEY. He definitely would not have said "IT IS ABOVE MY PAY GRADE!!"

Again how DENSE can you folks be. Or you trying to be stuipd or just trying to find some miniscule cover for Obama.


BTW Did you notice... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW

Did you notice that Obama doesnt feel that

a. the matter of going to war was above his pay grade.

b. that the surge was above his pay grade.

c. that affirmative action was above his pay grade

d. that gay marriage is above his pay grade

e. that gays serving in the military was above his pay grade

f. that the future of the economy is above his pay grade

g. that the Bush tax cuts were above his pay grade.

He has made definitive statements on all these items numerous times. Actually he has made definitive statements on abortion as well but he didnt want to talk about it last night because he was too much of a coward to stand up and say what he believes in.

Typical liberal politician - has to hide who he is and what he stands for unless there is a poll that says the people he is addressing believe what he believes.

The same could be said of a lot of conservative politicians as well. McCain has done the same thing on other occasions. The thing is we are currently discussing OBAMA's answer to a specific question. I will be glad to bash McCain when he does the same thing if I am aware that he is doing it.


Hyperbolist, I, for one am ... (Below threshold)
Tammy:

Hyperbolist, I, for one am glad we've been having this discussion because at least you're trying to get to the crux of why abortions are so rampant. I think that's a very honorable, thought-provoking question deserving of an honest answer. I only wish more people would stop looking at everything through rose-colored glasses and see that it is what it is. Until people acknowledge the origin of an issue they cannot correct the behavior. I hate to be cliche' but, "as the home goes, so goes the nation" (or something to that effect) would apply here. The breakdown of the family unit is a biggie.

One issue about using the t... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

One issue about using the term "above my pay grade". It has little to do with the amount of money you earn. It basically is saying you are not qualified to answer that question or perform that task. If a U.S. senator or President is not qualified to answer when someone gets rights, who is? It is part of their job to do so. So Obama is saying he is not qualified to be the U.S. President or Senator.

"Hyper are you genuinely st... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"Hyper are you genuinely stupid or do you work at it? Poor people cannot afford abortions that is why the poor breed poor. The middle class and wealthy use abortion as a birth control device. On topic now: Obama's whole life is above his pay grade. ww'

Actually ww, If you look at the statistics I BELIEVE that poor people get more abortions percentage wise than rich. Hispanics and African Amerians lead in the numbers of abortions if I remember correclty and yet they are not the majority of the population nor are they I believe statistically higher in income groups per capita. Of course I could be wrong.

Maybe I am misreading your statement or what you meant by the statement, however, I believe the belief that poor people cant get abortions due to being poor is inaccurate.

If he had said in my opi... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If he had said in my opinion THERE IS NO DEFINITE ANSWER then we wouldnt be having this discussion because there is no harm IMO in saying I DONT KNOW.

Oh, I seriously doubt that! Most of the comments from the right on this issue are that "it's his job" to have an opinion. Do you not think the right would have just as jolly a time with the answer "I don't know"?

How can there be a WRONG answer when you were asked IN YOUR VIEW.

"In your view" is a red herring. Any answer either candidate gives is in their view. Do you think without "in your view" he would have answered for someone else?

Obama punted to someone making MORE MONEY.
...

Again how DENSE can you folks be.

Not as dense as someone who took his phrase as literally meaning someone who earns more money than him.

Actually he has made def... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Actually he has made definitive statements on abortion as well but he didnt want to talk about it last night because he was too much of a coward to stand up and say what he believes in.

Apparently you also missed when he said:

I am pro-choice; I believe in Roe vs. Wade.
I will be glad to bash M... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I will be glad to bash McCain when he does the same thing if I am aware that he is doing it.

One is aware of what one chooses to be aware of.

I suggest the following:</p... (Below threshold)
jim2:

I suggest the following:

- read what Cassy documented to be Obama's positions 3 paragraphs after the quotation,

- then reread the question in its entirety, including the "pastor" and "40 million, uh ... abortions" framing, and

- THEN reread Obama's reply (I won't call it an answer).

I concluded that Obama just did not have the courage to honestly restate his position to that questioner at that time. He has prospered by avoiding telling anyone anything that that person does not want to hear. The MSM has consistently covered for him, so why should he ever change?

"At what point does a ba... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?"

He was too scared to answer in a manner consistent with his votes. And he couldn't answer as McCain did without being hypocritical.

He could have just given a definitive answer in a more or less legal sense - when it is living and breathing outside the womb - but even when the neutrality clause was added to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act he still voted against it. So that answer was out too.

I think we already know the answer. He's just not willing to come out and say it.

Hmmmm. If you come and sit ... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Hmmmm. If you come and sit before me for a job interview, and I ask your opinion on an issue that you're going to have to address as part of that job, and you tell me that that's "Above your paygrade", guess what?


You're too fucking stupid for me to give you the job.

The Listkeeper -Yo... (Below threshold)
jim2:

The Listkeeper -

Your analogy does not quite work, IMHO. Obama needs roughly 62 million votes (out of maybe 122 million total) in some pattern that yields 270 electoral votes. His vague non-answer may not have satisfied the questioner, but it avoided any clear and quotable soundbyte that could alienate any significant number of those who either:

- intended at that time to vote for Obama, or

- might well decide to vote for Obama.

For your analogy to be closer, he would have to give it before a significant number of the 122 million who might vote against him should he give such an answer. In fact, it might be better said that he was too savvy or cunning to give an answer with substance in the example situation.

Hold McCain to the same sta... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Hold McCain to the same standard next time he fails to give a specific answer to a question on the economy, then, Listkeeper, as the economy is certainly relevant to the job description, but the legal status of babies and fetuses perhaps only tangentially so.

"Oh, I seriously doubt that... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"Oh, I seriously doubt that! Most of the comments from the right on this issue are that "it's his job" to have an opinion. Do you not think the right would have just as jolly a time with the answer "I don't know"? "

In case you are so dense you missed it. I DONT KNOW is A VIEWPOINT and is a VERY VALID one. You should try using it more often as it fits so well.

" Do you think without "in your view" he would have answered for someone else? "

I dont know since he chose not to answer at all. He should try to give an answer sometime, it might help. Then again it might now. The nonanswers definitely dont.

"Again how DENSE can you folks be. "

Obviously not as dense as you that much is obvious.

"Not as dense as someone who took his phrase as literally meaning someone who earns more money than him."

Hey Obama is the one who said it. Blame him that he wasnt specific enough. Barring the FACT that he gave us nothing else to go on if we tried to invent something you would accuse us of putting words in his mouth.

"Apparently you also missed when he said"

Bravo Brian, I did miss it. You are exactly corerct about one thing so far. Keep on trying.

Now that he said he believes in Roe V Wade then one must conclude that he either

a. Believes that life (and human rights) begins when the baby takes it's first breath

or

b. that it is okay to murder humans who arent born (since the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is one of the inalianable human rights in the US Constitution).

Maybe someone will actually ask him which it is (again) and maybe this time he will umm actually answer it.

"One is aware of what one is aware of"

From your link

"The reporter explained that McCain voted against a bill in 2003 that would have required health insurance companies to cover prescription birth control. "Is that still your position?" she persisted."

Mixing apples and oranges there are we not, though not suprisingly.

But in respect to McCain on abortion it wouldnt surprise me that he has voted for or against aspects of abortion. As I stated I will gladly bash him on issues. And if he makes an asinine answer like Obama did, and it is the subject of the thread, and I feel like commenting I wont hesitate to blast him. Something I have seen you unwilling to do with Obama (maybe I missed something though).

If you search my previous posts ref McCain (right around the time he was getting the nomination ) you will find I am VERY unhappy with him as the nominee. I view him as the lesser of 2 evils and at that time I believe I stated I wouldnt vote for him. That was MY VIEW at the time (something that I didnt have to have someone give me - I decided it on my own). I may not yet. If I do it will definitely be a vote against Obama more so than a vote for McCain.

------------

Listkeeper

LOL. thanks for the laugh. I agree totally.

RM--Willie did mean to say ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

RM--Willie did mean to say that rich people have abortions and poor people don't, which is obviously false. Willie said this because facts are eggs on the teflon of his mind.

Tammy--I think you're right. I don't know if the family unit is any stronger in, say Sweden or Denmark than it is in the United States, though. One difference is literacy and poverty rates. Another is the nature of sexual education. Children become sexually active at a younger age in Scandinavia than in North America, and yet enjoy much lower rates of teen pregnancy, abortion, and STD infection.

Thank you Wizbang for so st... (Below threshold)
George:

Thank you Wizbang for so strongly supporting the patriarchal subjegation of the women folk! I guess that's why you're called "Wizbang"!'
depp=true
notiz= Yer welcome socky.

"...life, liberty, and the ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

"...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines..."

I guess it's a bit more complicated than you make it out to be, in that a woman's control over her uterus would presumably fall under the category of things having to do with her liberty. That statement doesn't rank the three abstract things to which Americans are entitled, so you need to look elsewhere for an answer to your question.

Odd. The retired military g... (Below threshold)
George:

Odd. The retired military guys own statistics show poverty declining through the Carter and Clinton administrations and then creeping back up under Reagan and Bush. What the freak is he trying to prove?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html
depp=true
notiz=sockpuppet deja vu....burp*

Odd. The retired military g... (Below threshold)
Dick:

Odd. The retired military guy's own statistics show poverty declining through the Carter and Clinton administrations and then creeping back up under Reagan and Bush. What the freak is he trying to prove?

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html
depp=true
notiz=sockpuppet du jour

"I guess it's a bit more co... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"I guess it's a bit more complicated than you make it out to be, in that a woman's control over her uterus would presumably fall under the category of things having to do with her liberty. That statement doesn't rank the three abstract things to which Americans are entitled, so you need to look elsewhere for an answer to your question."

Actually all rights are pretty much curtailed or extend as far as the next person. Freedom of speech does not mean you can shout fire in the theatre, etc. So you ummm you lose (again). But keep on trying. You may make it one day.
------------


BTW Brian

"One is aware of what one chooses to be aware of."

I think you have helped crstalize this debate.

On one hand McCain was man enough to stand up and say something definitive which may be compared to actions/ statements/votes in the past. He showed that he was man enough to stand up and take whatever the consequences of those words may bring knowing that the left would full well use everything in his past to try to show him to be a flip flopper.

Wherease Barrack was too much of a p*ssy to say anything definitive unless you consider him saying he isnt man enough to make up his own mind and that someone has to tell him what to think, is being a man.

You just might. I dont know.

Hey, George and Dick @ #s 6... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Hey, George and Dick @ #s 64-65, do you guys know each other?

Yeah, but giving a woman ju... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Yeah, but giving a woman jurisdiction over her own body derails the "It's either a baby and you're murdering it or it's not a baby and you aren't murdering it" dichotomy you're insisting on. You don't get to do the Column A or Column B thing with this issue. Familiarize yourself with contemporary academic writing on the subject. Go speak to a bioethicist, or professor of moral and/or political philosophy (someone with an advanced grasp of the nature of 'rights' and how they are indexed against one another would be a good start).

The last bit of your last post reveals you to be the sort of person I had assumed you were but didn't want to explicitly accuse you of so being: namely, a person who would prefer that someone give an answer--any answer--to a hard question, rather than thinking about it or perhaps not answering the question. It wasn't a life or death, 3 a.m. phone call Obama avoided; it was a very complex and difficult question, one that warranted a thoughtful response. Unable to give one, he opted not to just make shit up.

If McCain really believes the issue is that simple, fine, but as mainstream America is still mushily pro-choice, he's free to go as far right as he wants leading up to an election that will as usual be decided by those more or less in the middle.

Wow! I can't believe the "... (Below threshold)
George:

Wow! I can't believe the "retired military" guy actually wrote: "Wherease Barrack was too much of a p*ssy to say anything definitive unless you consider him saying he isnt man enough to make up his own mind and that someone has to tell him what to think, is being a man."

He manages to insult women by using a slang reference to their genetialia as an insult and using "being a man" as a complement. I knew the "pro-life" crowd was ubber patriachal in their oppression of women, but this guy manages to really demostrate his bigotry and sexism all in one sentence!

Hey, George and Di... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Hey, George and Dick @ #s 64-65, do you guys know each other?

They are the Sock Puppet twins. They may even have a triplet named PeachPit. Wasted bandwidth is becoming a theme with the last one.

but this guy manag... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
but this guy manages to really demostrate his bigotry and sexism all in one sentence!

And you manage to demonstrate typos extraordinaire along with a duel personality in one sentence. Stunning.

GeorgeYou demonstr... (Below threshold)
retired military:

George

You demonstrate that you fit in with Obama so well with your statements.

Hyper

'Yeah, but giving a woman jurisdiction over her own body derails the "It's either a baby and you're murdering it or it's not a baby and you aren't murdering it" dichotomy you're insisting on"

Gee Obama disagrees with you there

From Wizbang top of the fold (currently)

"On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted "present" on each, effectively the same as a "no."

"Number one," said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

Hey it isnt me that is having trouble where I stand on this issue. Sounds like it is Obama and his supporters.

"It wasn't a life or death, 3 a.m. phone call Obama avoided; it was a very complex and difficult question, one that warranted a thoughtful response. Unable to give one, he opted not to just make shit up."

Gee if the question had been say

"Obama if Russia invades Mexico is a nuclear response from the United States warranted"

then you might just might have a case with the statement you made.

Instead you have a question which has basically been a top political issue for the last 40 years for President. Don't use the excuse you hadnt given the question adequate thought or preparation, ESPECIALLY WHEN A PASTOR IS ASKING THE QUESTIONS, because it would make you look even more stupid than than answer he gave.

The beatings will continue until morale improves.


Oh and George try putting t... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Oh and George try putting the word DEFINITION after the primary word in your google searches and you will see that the word has multiple meanings (along with getting past all the pages that are stored in your favorites folder).


BTW why do you think I am a guy? I never mentioned my sex. Talk about sexism, stereotypes, and oppressing women!!!!

Geez

The beatings will continue until morale improves.


BTW George or shall I call ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW George or shall I call you Dick.. It is so much more appropriate.

The link you followed shows poverty statistics regarding abortion.

Try following the link here

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

which shows a graphical representation which for you should look suprising familiar. And it is easier for your little memb... umm mind to comprehend.

Again I say.... The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Wait, wait, I made a mista... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Wait, wait, I made a mistake. Sorry George,,, umm Dick... err whatever.

I was responding to Hillary's (poster number 1) ridiculous claim that poverty and abortion rates are linked and both go up during Republican administrations.

If you look at all the charts you will see that they are not linked at all. ALso you will see that poverty under GW went down from under Clinton (averaging about 10.7 under GW and a bit over 11.5 or so for Clinton - those are quick shots at the averages but pretty close). You will also see that no matter what the poverty rates were that abortion rates have steadily declined since Carter. 1980 - 2008 - 8 years with democrat president and 20 years with a republican president.

In short, Hillary doesnt have a clue what she is talking about and sadly neither do you.

In addtion, if you look at the poverty chart you will see that it was like 20 percent under Kennedy and dropped pretty steadily under Nixon, and Ford and went back up slightly under Carter.

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

I decided today that I will... (Below threshold)

I decided today that I will wholeheartedly support McCain in November's election mostly due to what I learned from the Saddleback Civil Forum this weekend. My uncertainty is gone. I believe McCain is genuine and a true leader. The more I learn about him, the more convinced I am that he is the best choice to be the leader of the US.

"Obama disagrees with you t... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

"Obama disagrees with you there."

And I care why? The guy just refused to answer the question because maybe he's dissatisfied with his own understanding of the issue. Know who else disagrees with me on the issue? James Dobson. I. Don't. Care. I have my own muddled opinion of the issue, as do you. You've just convinced yourself that you've reduced one of the most complex moral issues in human history to a black and white dichotomy, and while you might think it's that simple, people who think about this kind of thing for a living do not agree, and unless you avail yourself of what some of them have written; digest it; consider your counter-arguments; and formulate a hypothesis (or adopt a pre-existing one which you find attractive), then whatever you have to say on this issue is extraneous to any serious debate that might be occurring around you.

Or just keep on this "Obama needs to think less, and answer more rapidly!" tack. You seem to be enjoying yourself immensely.

MISQUOTE ALERT! MISQOUTE AL... (Below threshold)

MISQUOTE ALERT! MISQOUTE ALERT!
here's what he actually said:

Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, outside my gay lifestyle.

Sorry for not catching that sooner. Mighty brave of him though, dontcha think? I think America will be drawn to a proud gay man like Obama, and of course this totally disallows for the idea of him being a son of islam.

Well, that does it for me,

OBAMA '08!
(or are you a homophobe too?)

hyperbolist I have... (Below threshold)
retired military:

hyperbolist

I have to laugh. really.

It is really very very simple.

Let me break it down for you so that even you can understand it.


"At what point does a baby get human rights in your view? "

IN MY VIEW at the time of conception.

No smokescreens. No hyperboli. No long discussions involving thousands of polls, medical journals, or discertations.

It is really a SIMPLE concept for those that arent trying to impress anyone or figure out what the polls say. I have always felt this way and I always will. No matter who asks me the question, what scientific evidence about biological functions is brought up, or no matter how many people tell me my view is wrong I wont change my mind.

That sir is called conviction. Something obviously you nor Obama has.

As for enjoying myself. It isnt really very hard making fools like fools. Try standing for something and maybe life will be simpler for you.

" people who think about this kind of thing for a living do not agree"

Maybe people who think about this kind of thing for a living think too much with their head and not enough with their humanity or their soul or their heart. Humanity, gee a strange concept when you are talking about HUMAN rights.

Mark, lay off the contact c... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Mark, lay off the contact cement, that stuff will give you brain damage.

Retired Military, how do I think with my soul? Maybe I'll ask my Guardian Angel!

It is really a SIMPLE concept for those that arent trying to impress anyone or figure out what the polls say. I have always felt this way and I always will. No matter who asks me the question, what scientific evidence about biological functions is brought up, or no matter how many people tell me my view is wrong I wont change my mind.

That sir is called conviction. Something obviously you nor Obama has.

So, if neurologists pin down the exact instant in the development of the human brain when self-awareness is made phenomenologically real, you would still, no matter what, not change your mind as to when we can ascribe rights to a baby/fetus. Do you realize how stupid that makes you sound? You have no idea what you're talking about.

Of course people think about it with their head, as that's the only useful way of addressing difficult conceptual issues. Do you ask architects to "go with their gut"? No, because buildings would fall down. Similarly, I will waste no more time discussing the nature of what it means to be a person--that category of beings to which we ascribe moral rights--with someone who is unfamiliar with the relationship between our faculty of intentionality, self-awareness, and personhood. Okay? You lose. You might not think so, because you think with your "soul", but you're a few weeks in the library away from even beginning this conversation with me. If that sounds pretentious, I don't care. I learned a hell of a lot about matters you have no understanding of at a conceptual level--your understanding does not extend beyond emotional reaction--and I will be damned if I'm going to let some anti-intellectual know-nothing try to frame a debate that he or she isn't even qualified to comment on, let alone participate in.

By the way, never changing ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

By the way, never changing your mind in the face of evidence contrary to that which you believe isn't a sign of intestinal fortitude. It's a sign of willful ignorance.

The fourth paragraph @ #80 ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

The fourth paragraph @ #80 was meant to be in bold as well, as they're your words as well as those in the third paragraph.

if neurologists p... (Below threshold)
if neurologists pin down the exact instant in the development of the human brain when self-awareness is made phenomenologically real

Say hyper old buddy, how many of your quack scientists and doctors have already given people in comas death sentences, only to have that "brain dead" person ressurect to their surprise? How many times has the period of necessary gestation been moved to accomodate fiesty little ones, er,um, I mean, "ADVANCES IN SCIENCE!" You see my little hyper one, not all scientists are with you, and some M.D.s actually take the Hippocratic Oath seriously.

Give it up man, life is worth the living and no amount of denial from you or anyone else can change that. Because God loves all of us,even me and even you. Have a heart. Develop an imagination.Look at creation man! It's a gift. Why do you want to advocate for its destruction? If you have heard any of this in the least, it means He is working on you. If you haven't, it just means that you are not listening. Be still and know...

I don't believe in your God... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I don't believe in your God, or Zeus, or any of the Hindu ones, or any other supernatural entity. It's not in my nature. Now I don't care if you do or not, but I would prefer that you not beseech me to adopt your views, or use anything having to do with 'God' or the Bible to shape the public discourse on abortion. Laws are for the public, and religion is a private thing. At least, it ought to be.

Scientists are quacks? Well, tell that to every diabetic who has access to insulin. No scientist would ever say that scientists are never wrong. It's the clergyman's job to claim to have an ear on the pipeline of infallible truth, not the microbiologist's. At least scientists attempt to falsify their beliefs.

I'm not advocating for the destruction of anything, except the mindset that takes a woman's uterus to be subject to the will of anybody but that woman. It would be ***great!!!*** if there never was another abortion. I agree with you there. You know where we disagree, and unless you come up with some novel way of explaining to me how the law ought to limit a woman's autonomous control over her own organs, then this conversation will go no further.

That's it hyperbole<p... (Below threshold)
retired military:

That's it hyperbole

PUNT!!

But before you leave me to my libary quest read this.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218710394816&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Premature baby pronounced dead, comes back to life after 5 hours in hospital freezer...

Oh my.

Sorry I dont live up to your intellectual aspirations. I happen to live in the umm real world.

"So, if neurologists pin down the exact instant in the development of the human brain when self-awareness is made phenomenologically "


See you use the phrase SELF AWARENESS. I use the phrase LIFE. THere is a difference. There are plenty of organisms that are probably not SELF AWARE but are alive. Are bacteria self aware? Are Amoebas self aware? Prove it, please. But will your scientists deny they are alive?

And what happens if your scientists one day say "self awareness starts at the moment of conception" Oh my what a turmoil you are in then becuase your justification has just gone out the window.

As for my conviction. It is for this matter. In others I may or may not be open for discussion. It seems that your conviction in this matter is just as strong. Are you willing to change your mind should your scientists say self awareness starts at conception? Somehow I doubt it (at least if you are being honest with yourself).

"Do you ask architects to "go with their gut"? No, because buildings would fall down"

How many times do doctors go with their gut? After all arent they the FIRST to admit that medicine is an inexact science.

Once again your argument looks good on the surface but if you scratch a millimeter of it away it shows it is about that shallow.

"Of course people think about it with their head, as that's the only useful way of addressing difficult conceptual issues"

Again that is the problem. For you the beginning of life is still a conceptual issue for me it is a factual one. Maybe you should try to recognize the difference.

"but you're a few weeks in the library away from even beginning this conversation with me.'

HAHAHAH your soul doesnt seem ready to begin look at the issues.

"and I will be damned if I'm going to let some anti-intellectual know-nothing try to frame a debate that he or she isn't even qualified to comment on, let alone participate in."

BTW I have a masters. In computer science but not biology but still I am far from being antiintelluctual.

And why the anger. Do you feel threatened or jsut dont feel like having your nice set of ideas and right and wrong challenged.

As for Obama he didnt answer the question because he didnt want to piss folks off.

"For what does a man gain if he has the whole world and loses his soul"

Maybe you should spend some time thinking on that one instead of in a library trying to justify murder of innocent children.

One last thing"Ret... (Below threshold)
retired military:

One last thing

"Retired Military, how do I think with my soul? Maybe I'll ask my Guardian Angel! "

That might be a good place to start your quest for knowledge.

" You know where we disagre... (Below threshold)
retired military:

" You know where we disagree, and unless you come up with some novel way of explaining to me how the law ought to limit a woman's autonomous control over her own organs, then this conversation will go no further.
"

No I think we disagree on what life actually is and where one person's life is given more importance over another person's wishes.

Tell me, if there was say a 3 month old child who for some reason had to be physically attached to you for a period of 9 months to live would you let that child die?

Should anyone be allowed to let the child die for merely not wanting to be inconvenienced?

If you say that is ridiculous and immaterial you are dodging the question as much as Obama dodged it the other night.

If you answer yes than I feel for you honestly.

If you answer no then the question is not the one you outlined above but a question of when do you place your own body being inconvenienced over the life of another.

Which is what started this whole conversation.

Once again see how your argument simply falls apart once you scratch just past the surface. Or shall I say

"There is none so blind as those that do not see"


"and I will be dam... (Below threshold)
"and I will be damned if I'm going to let some anti-intellectual know-nothing try to frame a debate that he or she isn't even qualified to comment on, let alone participate in."

...and in Obamas', er,hyperbolists', er,um,an "Absolut world", the "unqualified" will not be permitted to live, er,uh,um,uh,der,doi, "participate".

I love Absolut vodka. Great... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I love Absolut vodka. Great advertising, too: their agency (TBWA) has won tons of awards for that print campaign. What's your favourite martini, Mark? Lemme guess: burnt with 'Livet and dirty, with three cambozola-stuffed olives. Am I right? I'm right, aren't I. I know, it's weird, how do I do that?

I have to go to bed, RM, but I'll answer your thought experiment.

Tell me, if there was say a 3 month old child who for some reason had to be physically attached to you for a period of 9 months to live would you let that child die?

That depends. What do you mean by "had to be"? Who's making me? Anyway, I'd likely develop an emotional attachment to the child and want to keep him, so I might just say no from the get-go for the sake of my career, or I might say "Ah, why not, you cute little munchkin!" But I would choose, and you would be free to judge me for that choice based on your religious beliefs--but not to make the choice for me.

The bits about neurosurgeons had to do with rights. Rights are not ascribed to individuals once they're alive; rights are contingent upon the bearer of these rights possessing certain cognitive faculties. Neurology and morality are connected. You seemed to be arguing that rights are given (or should be given) to mere human life, as opposed to human beings. There is a distinction: a zygote is not a child. It is not a person. It cannot be the bearer of 'rights', assuming we're interested in using that word properly.

And the talk about whether or not a zygote/fetus/baby is a person is extraneous to the central issue, namely, who/what claims jurisdiction over the womb of an autonomous person; and, if it be the state (as you argue), then I want you to tell me what a woman should be charged with if she were to have an abortion in a place where they were deemed illegal. Murder? That is the answer that follows from your convictions. If you're fine with that, then kudos for being consistent.

how many of your q... (Below threshold)
how many of your quack scientists and doctors have already given people in comas death sentences, only to have that "brain dead" person ressurect to their surprise? How many times has the period of necessary gestation been moved to accomodate fiesty little ones

Way to completely dodge the above Senator. You are an excellent example of the left,full of bluff and bluster and totally incapable of actually entering the fray. Sleep tight. Heaven forbid you should give a straight answer to a real query. Yes, that is what I am saying: you are a coward. Buh-bye.

I believe Barack was referr... (Below threshold)
Mike Z:

I believe Barack was referring to GOD you idiots. GOD is the only one who knows when life begins you freeking retards. That was a great answer. This is a polarizing question and Obama realizes the ridiculousness in trying to answer when life begins!!!

GOD is the only o... (Below threshold)
GOD is the only one who knows when life begins you freeking retards.

Well, as long as He knows what we're killing,then I guess it's okay to turn a mothers womb into a crematorium. Oops, I take that back (don't want to give you guys any ideas).

...explaining to m... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
...explaining to me how the law ought to limit a woman's autonomous control over her own organs,

hyperbolist-

The law has nothing to do with control over a woman's organs. The original post is about whether or not Obama would present his view on when a baby gets human rights. Obama has a view based on his previous voting track record, but refused to state it. The law doesn't even factor into the question, because abortions are still legal. Don't get side-tracked into this "control over women's organs thing", because we are already assuming she is in control when she decides to have unprotected sex. There is no such law that has that kind of control.

GOD is the only on... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
GOD is the only one who knows when life begins you freeking retards.

If we are talking about the same God, He also created us in His image to have dominance over the earth and life on earth. So, what's your point, besides jumping in with an insult?

hypoboy is a coward, and a ... (Below threshold)

hypoboy is a coward, and a liar, and a walking platitude regurgitator. An empty vessel. A black hole for "anti-intellectualism",ie; any line of thinking he disagrees with. The King of esoterica. Really. Just ask him.

But,one who responds substantively to substantive concepts? No.So sad.

"But I would choose, and yo... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"But I would choose, and you would be free to judge me for that choice based on your religious beliefs--but not to make the choice for me. "

True and once again, someone who hasnt a voice (the child) is left at the mercy of the one voting democratic.

" Rights are not ascribed to individuals once they're alive"

Gee abortion rights are.
Rights to vote are (after you are alive for so many years. Or for democratic purposes after you are dead too.
Shall I go on...

"to mere human life, as opposed to human beings. There is a distinction:"

Only for folks like you.

" a zygote is not a child. It is not a person. It cannot be the bearer of 'rights', assuming we're interested in using that word properly.
"

Again only for a person like you. But those rights are the crux of the conversation.

"And the talk about whether or not a zygote/fetus/baby is a person is extraneous to the central issue"

No actually it IS THE CENTRAL ISSUE. But you just refuse to see it becuase umm then you would have to deal with it.

"then I want you to tell me what a woman should be charged with if she were to have an abortion in a place where they were deemed illegal. Murder? That is the answer that follows from your convictions. If you're fine with that, then kudos for being consistent.
"

Well I am consistent at least.

ANd oh yes

"explaining to me how the law ought to limit a woman's autonomous control over her own organs,"

The law does this now. A woman cant legally cut out her own kidney, or even sell that kidney on the internet. Prostitution is illegal in most states. Attempted suicide is illegal.

The examples of the government telling us what we can and cant do with our bodies is quite extensive. How about you spend some time in the library researchig and you can come back to talk to me after a few weeks about it.

--------------

Mike Z

"I believe Barack was referring to GOD you idiots. GOD is the only one who knows when life begins you freeking retards. That was a great answer. This is a polarizing question and Obama realizes the ridiculousness in trying to answer when life begins!!!"

Umm you are about a half day late and from reading your screed you look to be a few dollars short. I already predicted that the Obama would use this statenent as cover.

And God said "And I know you even in the womb". Now He wouldnt refer to you as YOU if he was talking about an it would HE?

And Obama has no problem answering the question if the audience happens to be a bunch of idiots like you or when a vote on the Illinois Senate floor is about abortion.

"hypoboy is a coward, and a liar, and a walking platitude regurgitator. An empty vessel. A black hole for "anti-intellectualism",ie; any line of thinking he disagrees with. The King of esoterica. Really. Just ask him."

Hey I have the patience of a saint usually. Or least the tenacity of one (I hope). Besides, I dont have much else to do right now.

The question is above my pa... (Below threshold)
Larry Sitton:

The question is above my pay grade as well. Abstinence is one means of pregnancy prevention, as well as, contraceptives but neither of these work for all people. Also, incest and rape do sometimes result in pregnancy and sometimes the life of the women is at stake in a pregnancy. I prefer someone who takes a contemplative approach to the question rather than the short stupid responses of McCain which he also has for other important issues such as war, taxes, energy, and health insurance. Obama is pro-choice but he is not pro abortion. Abortion rates have been going down for 20 years and there are many reasons for it. I often think the right would prefer a Taliban approach to both pregnancy and abortion especially when hearing the short McCain respone which they seem to cheer.

Larrynice summary ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Larry

nice summary of liberal talking points. I think you hit just about all of them. Did you consult the NARAL or GAL pages before posting?

"Abortion rates have been going down for 20 years "

Shhh dont tell Hillary (poster number 1), she was using her set of liberal talking points and now you two are crossing lanes.

Way to completely dodge ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Way to completely dodge the above Senator.

I addressed it, as scientists can and do make mistakes, and they admit it. They're fallible. Whatever someone coming out of a coma has to do with the issue is beyond me. Stay on topic.

The rights of a baby are indexed against the rights of the mother. The mother has control over her uterus. She ought to have control, insofar as she is an autonomous being. Does it matter that women aren't allowed to be prostitutes in most/all states? Not really--the issue as to whether that is a just law and sufficiently respectful of the autonomy of women is a separate question.

If you want abortions to be made illegal by 5 of 9 SCOTUS justices deciding a zygote has rights, then the onus is on you to address the following questions:

Are blastocysts entitled to child support?

If a woman's period is late, why shouldn't she have to check in with a doctor-bureaucrat?

If someone gets IVF treatment using multiple embryos, why haven't they committed negligent manslaughter (once most/all of the embryos have died)?

Atrios asked these questions yesterday. In order for your position to be serious, e.g. translatable into policy, you need to answer these questions without looking ridiculous. Have fun!

"I prefer someone who takes... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"I prefer someone who takes a contemplative approach to the question rather than the short stupid responses of McCain"

No, you prefer someone to give you an answer you agree with and your guy punted instead.
Nice try to cover for Obama but again you fail.


" I often think the right would prefer a Taliban approach to both pregnancy and abortion"

What exactly is a taliban approach? Keeping women barefoot and pregnant. Or are you saying republicans terrorize women?

geez. what an idiot.

LarryMy comments w... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Larry

My comments were probably a bit harsh. At least you gave an opinion, which is more than Obama did.

------------
Hyperboli
" Stay on topic."

Umm you are the one that has gone all over the board with this. And scientists mistakes can cost lives unnessarily. Which apparantly is fine by you as long as it isnt your life.

"ought to have control, insofar as she is an autonomous being."

Again asked and answered. She doesnt have the right by law to remove her own uterus, sell her uterus, etc. We as a society dictate what we can and cannot do with our own bodies. Try selling a kidney on Ebay.


"1. Are blastocysts entitled to child support?

2. If a woman's period is late, why shouldn't she have to check in with a doctor-bureaucrat?

3. If someone gets IVF treatment using multiple embryos, why haven't they committed negligent manslaughter (once most/all of the embryos have died)?"

Answers
1. Why would they need child support if indeed they are still in the mother. Child support by definition is for taking care of children which are not in their mother's wombs.
BTW blastocysts are not germane to just humans. So please be more specific when asking someone else's questions.

2. Because there are a number of reasons why this could occur naturally. If your heart skips a beat are you REQUIREd to go see a govt Beaurocrat or doctor?

3. Because the embryos have died inside the mother. This is a natural part of the circle of life. Just like sperm and eggs dying inside the mother or natural miscarriages.

Deliberately killing a fetus is not especially due to it being an inconvenience to the mother.
Humans are (To my knowledge) the only species which knowingly kills their young in the womb.

"If you want abortions to be made illegal by 5 of 9 SCOTUS justices "

You are perfectly fine that 5 out of 9 justices made it legal to do so. And overturning ROE V Wade would return the decision to state level not outlaw abortion. You are mixing apples and oranges.


" Stay on topic."

Gee and I thought the topic was Obama giving a nonanswer to question and saying his opinion was not his to give but for someone to give it to him.

Try following your own rules, you may get in less trouble that way and wont look nearly as bad.

"Whatever someone coming ou... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"Whatever someone coming out of a coma has to do with the issue is beyond me. "

My link was in reference to a baby which had been declared dead by a doctor found to alive 5 hours later.

"Stay on topic"

Again try to follow your own advice.

Here is a question for you.... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Here is a question for you.
Woman A is delivering a baby. At the last minute she decides to have an abortion at the very last minute.
a. The Doctor performs a partial birth abortion. Baby is dead.
b. Doctor delivers the baby, it cries. The then takes a scalpel and cuts it throat. Baby is dead.
Other than the fact that one is legal and one isn't. What is the difference in the end result?

"What is the difference in ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

"What is the difference in the end result?"

Who cares? Right and wrong, legal and illegal, are evaluatory concepts that are not as superficial as the teleological utilitarian framing you've imposed here. The end result isn't all that matters. The intentions and the character of the agent must be taken into account for you to say whether an action is wrong or right.

In this case, I guess slitting a baby's throat with a scalpel is disgusting, and I'm no fan of partial birth abortion either to be honest. So, let's say that partial birth abortions are now illegal: who gets charged when they're performed? Does the woman go to jail for murder (like with a contract killing)? I guess she would, right? And the doctor would be guilty too, right?

Making abortion illegal isn't going to stop abortions. It's just going to make them less safe; but if you think the risk of dying during an illegal procedure is a morally acceptable deterrent to abortion, then that's on you.

"The intentions and the cha... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"The intentions and the character of the agent must be taken into account for you to say whether an action is wrong or right."

So you are saying that slitting a baby's throat can be considered right. How typically liberal of you.

" So, let's say that partial birth abortions are now illegal: who gets charged when they're performed? Does the woman go to jail for murder (like with a contract killing)? I guess she would, right? And the doctor would be guilty too, right?
"

Umm Yes you are right on 2 counts. See the concept of right and wrong on something isnt so hard.

"Making abortion illegal isn't going to stop abortions. It's just going to make them less safe; but if you think the risk of dying during an illegal procedure is a morally acceptable deterrent to abortion, then that's on you."

a. Here we go with the women dying in back alleys with coathangers defense. Liberal lies spread by liberals who dont want to face the fact that they are killing babies. I was wondering when you would get to that one.

b. Child molestation is illegal but umm it hasnt stopped. Same with murder, drug use, etc. So your argument is saying "Hey since making it illegal wont stop it then we should just make it legal". Tell me do you feel these should be legal since making them illegal hasnt stopped them? gun control? child molestation? illegal drug use? Men beating their wives? Robbery? Assault? Or is it just the killing of babies that is easy for you to decide is right or wrong because making it illegal wont stop it?

By the way try doing research on women suicide rates for women who have had abortions. So much for the health of the mother.

One little, two little, three little strawmen, four little, five little, six little strawmen, seven little, eight little, nine little strawmen, 10 little liberal boys.

Why dont you just quit while you are behind?

The beatings will continue until morale improves.


BTW"Other than one... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW

"Other than one being legal, .... What is the difference"

BTW the answer (as you know) is NOTHING. The only difference is that in one you legally killed a baby and in the other you didn't. But of course you don't want to admit that reality.

When Obama answers that dec... (Below threshold)
Rhea:

When Obama answers that deciding when a baby gets human rights is "Above his pay grade", he is using an expression that means he does not proclaim to be the authority on such a theologically and scientifically complex issue. As a politician it is not his decision to decide when a baby gets human rights protection, I think he is actually alluding to God as being the one with the higher pay grade. This term is often used in the military when you do not have authority to answer a question.
While politicians do have the responsibility to be upfront about where they stand, Obama has made his beliefs public knowledge. Also, our nation is facing so many important issues that the public seems to be more concerned about than abortion at this point.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy