Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Cop out
Posted by: McQ on Sunday, August 17, 2008

I don't care what side of the abortion debate you come down on, this is simply a cop out:
Asked at what point a baby gets “human rights,” Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”
No. It's not. Answering that question is how one arrives, at least partially, at their position of being for or against abortion. For a legislator who has passed legislation which directly bears on that determination it is an absolute cop out to claim such a determination is "above my paygrade". If he's passing laws that allow abortion then he is, defacto, making such determinations - his "pay-grade" requires it of him. As far as I'm concerned, claiming he isn't equipped to make such a determination means he's not equipped to be President of the United States either.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Amen!
 
Written By: Bryan Pick
URL: http://www.qando.net
Well, Science never makes rights determinations. It makes, or tries to make, factual determinations.

Theologians make essential determinations in accordance with the laws of God.

It is civil lawmakers who in making the positive law determine the scope of the just claims (natural rights) that is protected within a system of law.

Judges, meanwhile, interpret laws and the Constitution.

So McQ is more than right about this.

Plus, the buffoon mentalist takes that "I’m a Constitutionsl law professor" gag out and waves it around whenever he sees fit.

His answer was a dodge around the fact that as an Illinois state senator he voted against a law protecting infants who wind up being born alive during an abortion.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
I’ll cut Obama some slack to the extent that he meant, "It’s human, with human rights, when it has a functioning brain and nervous system that makes it conscious and capable of feeling pain — but when exactly that point is, or tends to be, is beyond my pay grade."

(Probably because that’s my position too...)
 
Written By: KipEsquire
URL: http://www.kipesquire.net
Kip, if that’s what Obama meant, and if you agree with that, may I suggest that science does, indeed (within the bounds of probabilities) answer that point, and it’s not in Obama’s favor? Perhaps Obama should have someone read the articles and look at the data and explain it to him?

I am a sort of wishy-washy abortion supporter. I believe that early abortions (first tri-mester, say, although I loathe the Blackmun-invented tri-mester scheme) are going to happen, and while I’d prefer they didn’t, I don’t feel like I should have a say in the matter. I can go along with abortion in that time frame should be available, rarely needed (I would wish), medically as safe as possible, and no one’s business except the mother and father (I’m open to argument on the father) and appropriate medical personnel. I have a daughter with two sons, and if she had asked me about abortion I would have counseled against it, then supported her as well as I could if she decided to have one.

However, by the them we get to later term abortions, my resolve hardens. At some point you are ending a human life, even if birth has not occurred. The fact that some people don’t want to address this because it makes their preferred policy choice problematic doesn’t impress me.

This tends to result in an unwillingness to draw any lines whatsoever on abortion (we don’t even do that with First Amendment Rights) and to crazily attempt to tamp down any debate, discussion, or change even in the light of new evidence.

Let me be clear. I don’t think life begins at conception, I’m dubious at implantation, and prior to the development of the nervous system. However, at some point, a fetus is a baby, born or not, and I don’t think a refusal to debate when that point is (for political reasons, especially) is very useful to anyone.

Perhaps the anti-abortion camp should begin framing the argument more in terms of Civil Rights and when they inhere. A case of ’deprivation of Civil Rights for a fetus/baby’ might be really interesting.

Anyway, the whole thing just opens up another of Obama’s problems.
 
Written By: jorgxmckie
URL: http://
I think "is above my paygrade" should actually be interpreted as - "My advisors haven’t told me how to answer this question and without their collective hand up my butt to move my lips I’m afraid I’ll say something that will upset half of the electorate so I’ve decided to make a reference to God in a very indirect way that my core won’t care about and that doesn’t conflict with my very non-religious position." Of course he forgets that those who are interested in God’s position already know it - and don’t expect someone ’above their paygrade’ to need to address them personally.

I think that in terms of his position we have an answer based on how he’s voted - however I agree his inability to answer does illustrate another reason why he’s not fit to be the President.

 
Written By: BillS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com/
jorgxmckie,

I would suggest that your ambivalent feelings about when life begins demonstrate the validity of Obama’s answer to that question. You don’t think life begins at conception; you’re dubious about implantation; but at some point you are sure that life begins. But you can’t say where that point is with any specificity.

In past centuries (before the last century), many people believed that life began at "quickening" (when fetal movements begin; the fetus starts to kick, etc.). Today, many abortion opponents say with absolute certainty that life begins at the moment of conception. Scientifically and biologically, this is simply false. A pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall. Before that point, it’s not even possible to detect a pregnancy; ergo, you can say life begins at conception all you want but there’s no way to identify that moment.

The larger point, though, is that the very fact we debate when life begins — until the moment of birth, when *no one* debates or questions that a new life has begun — is the proof that no one really knows when life begins before that point. People may have their strong emotional beliefs, but that’s all they are, they are not certainties.

That being the case, Obama answered that question honestly and with integrity. He did not dodge it. McCain, on the other hand, gave a political answer designed to please right-wing voters and/or voters who want abortion to be illegal. There’s no reason to believe he even believes his own words. Who knows what he thinks about abortion or when he thinks life begins? Most likely he couldn’t care less. He’s just saying what he knows his voting base wants to hear.
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreet.wordpress.com
Kathy,
Today, many abortion opponents say with absolute certainty that life begins at the moment of conception. Scientifically and biologically, this is simply false.
Scientifically and biologically, the statement is clearly true. The DNA is completely set and distince from each parent, cellular function is ongoing, and so on. Embryology texts state that the "product of conception" is alive, an organism, and a member of the species of the parents. IOW, with respect to humans, at conception the new organism becomes a member of Homo sapiens and is fully alive. Science textbooks contradict you, not agree with you. It is politicians and their ilk who muddy the issue.
A pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall.
Why did you change the issue from the life of the conceived organism to the pregnancy of the mother? Note also that in my first paragraph I focused on life, which is a scientific issue. I have not adressed personhood, which is not.
Before that point, it’s not even possible to detect a pregnancy; ergo, you can say life begins at conception all you want but there’s no way to identify that moment.
It is not easily possible with today’s technology to usually detect conception. However, tomorrow’s technology may make it easy, and science already often detects conception before implantation, such as for test-tube babies. So your statement that "there’s no way to identify that moment" is clearly false.
The larger point, though, is that the very fact we debate when life begins [...] is the proof that no one really knows when life begins before that point.
The debate does not prove that no one knows; it is more likely that some people have a vested interest in preventing most people from coming to a clear decision.
People may have their strong emotional beliefs, but that’s all they are, they are not certainties.
As I said, with regard to life I am quite certain. Do you pretend to know my mental state on this issue? I freely admit that my conclusions on this issue are based on the Bible and on science—but in this issue my two sources of authority agree, and this allows me to have certainty.
Obama answered that question honestly and with integrity. He did not dodge it. McCain, on the other hand, gave a political answer designed to please right-wing voters and/or voters who want abortion to be illegal.
And just how do you know what Obama and McCain really think on this issue? Do you have a magical ability to peer into their souls, as you earlier seemed to claim with my soul?
 
Written By: Rory Daulton
URL: http://
Obama knows his limitations, at least he knows he doesnt belong in the Oval office.
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
"Above his paygrade"

Holy sh*t you’re kidding me.

The only higher paygrade than the POTUS on this earth is God.



 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"That being the case, Obama answered that question honestly and with integrity. He did not dodge it."
WRONGO! Perhaps honestly, but certainly NOT with integrity. As others have said, if he’s clueless about this - has NO opinion, then WHY is he voting on abortion matters at all? Wouldn’t the high road be to recuse oneself from a vote based on ignorance? I’m not impressed with his integrity at all. He has none.



 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
It seems to me that making decisions and passing laws based on the answer to that question is already in his pay grade, and has been since he was elected to the Illinois legislature. That of course makes an assumption that he actually thinks about what he is voting on.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Timactual-

With the IL legislature, his signature move was voting "present"

I really doubt he knows, much less thinks about, what he’s voting on
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
If life begins at conception, then every abortion is a murder, and the mother and the doctor should be put in prison for life.

Run on the platform, wingnuts. Please.

Of course, wingnuts won’t run on that platform. They don’t have the courage of their convictions. Never have. Which makes them the worst of hypocrites.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
"With the IL legislature, his signature move was voting "present" "

Evidently he also thinks that just being present is sufficient for life in general. It seems he was ’present’ at church for 20 years, also. I am sure that if he wins, being ’present’ in the White House will also be sufficient to fulfill his obligations as chief executive. He would probably be ’present’ at any summit meetings with Putin, also. Just like JFK and Kruschev.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
The only higher paygrade than the POTUS on this earth is God.

That’s actually what Obama meant when he said the question of when life begins was above his paygrade.

What did you think he meant?
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreet.wordpress.com
If life begins at conception, then every abortion is a murder, and the mother and the doctor should be put in prison for life.

If life begins at conception, then every woman on earth ends a life every month.
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreet.wordpress.com
If life begins at conception, then every woman on earth ends a life every month.
Ahh, no. That assumes that a fertilized, non-attached egg is present every month.
 
Written By: Loren
URL: http://
If life begins at conception, then every woman on earth ends a life every month.
geeze Kathy...is that an immaculate sort of thing going on every month? All new little messiahs being ended as part of the menstrual cycle?
Or do you have another definition for the word conception that the dictionary does not?

As Inago Montoya would say - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Let me help you out a bit, you’re obviously confused -
Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Not to mention how a fetus can become ’people’ right fast if we need a second murder charge for the killing of a woman and her unborn child.

Ah yes, California as early as 11 - 13 weeks, that would be within the first trimester unless I miss my guess....

Amazing....first it’s a choice....then it’s a child! It’s two! two! two! things at once!
But only when it’s convenient.
Convenience is very important.

And conveniently it’s above Obama’s paygrade to decide while he passes laws that decide.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Obama’s answer would have merit only if he had voted "Present" every time a bill calling for his vote regarding abortion. Then a "Present" vote would have been appropriate. And he can’t say he hasn’t used that type of response otherwise!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
"The buck stops here" is a phrase that was popularized by U.S. President Harry S. Truman. It refers to "passing the buck," i.e., handing responsibility to someone else, and the fact that the president has to make the decisions and accept the ultimate responsibility for those decisions.

Obamessiah...not so much. Real presidential timber there, gotta say. it’s only one of the most significant questions of the last 40 years, by all means dump it on God.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
That being the case, Obama answered that question honestly and with integrity. He did not dodge it. McCain, on the other hand, gave a political answer designed to please right-wing voters and/or voters who want abortion to be illegal. There’s no reason to believe he even believes his own words. Who knows what he thinks about abortion or when he thinks life begins? Most likely he couldn’t care less. He’s just saying what he knows his voting base wants to hear.
Clearly, Kathy drank the cool aid. Unfortunatly for Obama, the swing voters haven’t.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
is that an immaculate sort of thing going on every month? All new little messiahs being ended as part of the menstrual cycle?

At least 20% and according to some estimates as many as 75% of all fertilized eggs either fail to implant and are absorbed back into the woman’s body, or spontaneously abort soon after implantation and are ejected from the woman’s body during the woman’s normal menstrual period.

Obviously, any given individual woman is not conceiving every month, but every and any time a woman who is sexually active has her period, a very early miscarriage could be occurring without the woman even knowing she had conceived. So if a human life begins at conception, then literally millions of fertilized egg people are committing suicide or being murdered every month.
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreet.wordpress.com
it’s only one of the most significant questions of the last 40 years, by all means dump it on God.

So only insignificant questions should be "dumped" on God?
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreet.wordpress.com
Obviously, any given individual woman is not conceiving every month, but every and any time a woman who is sexually active has her period, a very early miscarriage could be occurring without the woman even knowing she had conceived. So if a human life begins at conception, then literally millions of fertilized egg people are committing suicide or being murdered every month.


Committing suicide or being murdered? That is the absolute worst application of logic that I have read. So, are all human deaths either suicide or murder or just those of non-implanting zygotes?

It simply means that unique human life fails to continue in its biological develpment. But, it is unique; it is homo sapien; and, it is a biological life. Unfortunately for some, it is completely dependent upon its mother during its first nine months of life.
 
Written By: Is
URL: http://
To those pro-choicers who insist that the conceptus is not a distinct living organism, congratulations! You have decided to employ the same science ignoring, faith-based argumentation as the young earth creationists!

mkultra - the likely electoral success, or lack thereof, a campaign featuring the position that conception results in an individual organism in no way alters the established fact this is, biologically speaking, true.

If you would prefer a position slightly more in tune with science and reason, you can claim that while the conceptus is human, it is not a "person" (a malleable concept of human construction which is not claimed to be grounded in empirical fact).
 
Written By: cnh
URL: http://
Obviously, any given individual woman is not conceiving every month
Is far different then:
If life begins at conception, then every woman on earth ends a life every month.
Nice to see some movement toward reality.
 
Written By: Loren
URL: http://
So only insignificant questions should be "dumped" on God?
Wonderful logic....no, that’s not what it means at all. I’m not suggesting any questions should be dumped on God. That’s apparently OKAY by you, and yet I bet you’re a member of the ’reality based’ community.

No, decisions of this magnitude should not be dumped on God, it’s not an insignificant question, and it’s a dodge to dump it on God when he knows perfectly well that he may be asked to appoint a justice that will decide if we continue with the current national policy on abortion. If God made more national policy decisions directly we wouldn’t need a President. As it is, God being mysterious and a behind the scenes kinda being, it’s likely Obama will have to make a decision on a Supreme Court Justice in the near future if he becomes President of the United States. Obama can feel free to ask God to help him make that choice, but it’s going to be Obama’s mouth that says the name, Metatron won’t be making an appearance that day in all likelihood.

Whether I agree with his stand or not isn’t relevant to ducking the question in this weasley mealy mouthed, "not up to me to decide" fashion. You WANT this guy to be President because you think you’ve looked into his soul, and you THINK he’s on your side of the issue. I’d worry if I were you, he either can’t DECIDE, and that could be a problem for your CHOICE in the future, or he’s just practicing politics as usual in his not politics as usual campaign (that is, he’s prevaricating). What he’s done here is betrayed your side of the argument, he can’t even be man enough to step up and tell you what he thinks on the issue and it’s only because you think he’s on your side that you’re giving him a pass. The answer he gave is intended to have some appeal to people who don’t want abortion as a national policy, so he’s, effectively, LYING by saying he can’t decide when he’s already decided.

Secondly -
Committing suicide or being murdered? That is the absolute worst application of logic that I have read. So, are all human deaths either suicide or murder or just those of non-implanting zygotes?
Exactly as stated. Are you construing the decision women make when they decide (and who unlike Obama, don’t view such a decision as OUTSIDE THEIR PAYGRADE) to keep or abort to be the same as a natural, unconscious bodily action when a fertilized egg doesn’t implant?
Are you even remotely serious in comparing these two things?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Are you construing the decision women make when they decide (and who unlike Obama, don’t view such a decision as OUTSIDE THEIR PAYGRADE) to keep or abort to be the same as a natural, unconscious bodily action when a fertilized egg doesn’t implant?

Uh, no. I’m saying that if a fertilized egg is a human life, than a human life is lost everytime a fertilized egg absorbs back into a woman’s body or is flushed out with her period. That’s a human life — just like a newborn baby, just like a nine-year-old, just like you and me, right? Shouldn’t we take it just as seriously when a fertilized egg dies as when any other human life dies?

This is not intended as snark. This is a serious, legitimate question. If a fertilized egg is a human life, then it’s a human life. Are there two different classes of human life? One that gets funerals and condolence cards after dying and one that doesn’t? And if a fertilized egg is NOT a human life in the same way that you and I are, then why are we saying that it is, and why are we debating whether a woman should be "allowed" to end its development?
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreet.wordpress.com
My reply is not meant to be snarky either. Defining human life is based in science and not whether or not one chooses to hold a funeral or send a condolence card. If a homeless man would not have a funeral or a card sent to his family upon his death, is it debatable whether or not his development could be ended by someone else? Funerals and cards avoid the subject, which is science. Every day in American courts, jury members accept the fact that unique DNA belongs to unique individuals. This unique DNA began with conception. It is homo sapien DNA. The zygote is biological. It is carrying out processes that are unique to life (as opposed to some chemical reaction). It is a living, bilogical, unique human. It is simply dependent upon sustenance from its mother while the living creature gestates. Funerals and cards don’t determine life. Millenia old religious writings do not either. Our constitution says that all humans have a right to life. We can scientifically determine what a human life is. In fact, one has to really twist the logical outcome of application of the scientific method to determine that unique, human life does not begin at conception, because that is exactly what a fertilized ovum is.
 
Written By: Is
URL: http://
This is not intended as snark. This is a serious, legitimate question. If a fertilized egg is a human life, then it’s a human life. Are there two different classes of human life? One that gets funerals and condolence cards after dying and one that doesn’t?
Your argument gets more and more incoherent as you go on:

#1. You argue above that the person doesn’t even know that the child ever existed, yet then you insist on a funeral for the child? What are people supposed to do, have a prophylactic funeral with a little tampon or maxi-pad sized casket each month "just in case?"

#2. Couples who are aware that they are pregnant often do mourn the loss of their child after a miscarriage, as do siblings, the grandparents, friends of the parents, etc. Often they have funerals, official burial or cremation of the remains, etc.
 
Written By: Terry
URL: http://
Uh, no. I’m saying that if a fertilized egg is a human life, than a human life is lost every time a fertilized egg absorbs back into a woman’s body or is flushed out with her period.
One more time - and we’ll assume for the sake of the argument you’re avoiding that the women in question are not deliberately taking actions to ensure there is not a successful implantation of a fertilized egg.

Are you seriously comparing a woman’s unconscious bodily action of failing to implant a fertilized egg to be the same as her conscious choice to undergo an abortion?

Seriously? Are you?

You’ve been digging in this hole since your original broad brush statement that perhaps millions of women are murders every month by virtue of having their periods. First law of holes applies.
Shouldn’t we take it just as seriously when a fertilized egg dies as when any other human life dies?
You don’t have a clue what my actual position is on abortion, and yet you seem to be concerned with whether or not I want to mourn every fertilized egg that doesn’t make it to the stage where it becomes a human because of a perfectly natural process that effectively aborts the egg. Next you’ll want to tell me how I feel about the sacredness of the sperm perhaps?

From a purely logical standpoint I’m trying to understand how you could possibly, ever, in a million years, make the comparison between a choice to go and have an abortion and a miscarriage or a simple failure to implant through no action on the woman’s part.
why are we debating whether a woman should be "allowed" to end its development?
Perhaps that’s what you think you are debating.
Asked at what point a baby gets "human rights," Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: ". whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity . is above my pay grade."
What I’m asking, and what the point of the post is - IS it okay for future President Dodgey Changitude to say this question should be answered by God.

Human rights questions will now be answered by God? No longer something the President of the United States will be laboring over?
God will be appearing once every other month on the South Lawn of the White House to address these issues?

Dodgey knows he’s passed the buck, and it’s yet another demonstration why he ought not to be the President of the United States.
That was the point.
You, on the other hand viewed his dodgey answer as ’honest’, whereas McCain answered the question, but was ’being political’.

You’re putting us all on, right? This is like an Ott Screb thing?




 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
" a very early miscarriage could be occurring without the woman even knowing she had conceived. So if a human life begins at conception, then literally millions of fertilized egg people are committing suicide or being murdered every month."

"Definitions of murder on the Web:

kill intentionally and with premeditation;..."
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:murder&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title


Murdered? Murdered by who, G*d? Or do women have such amazing control over their bodies that these are intentional and premeditated acts? But wait, no, you say the woman doesn’t even know, so premeditation is out.

" Shouldn’t we take it just as seriously when a fertilized egg dies as when any other human life dies?"

Of course. I recommend a new federal statute to outlaw this, and of course, a new federal program to educate and prevent such things.

"Are there two different classes of human life? One that gets funerals and condolence cards after dying and one that doesn’t?"

So, since the early miscarriage or whatever is completely unknown to the woman (your words), who arranges the funerals and mails the condolence cards? I am reminded of the old philosophical text, "So, Grasshopper, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?".


 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Are you seriously comparing a woman’s unconscious bodily action of failing to implant a fertilized egg to be the same as her conscious choice to undergo an abortion?

I answered that question already.

Are you seriously defining fertilized eggs, which have no consciousness or volition and which, if they fail to implant, leave the body without the woman knowing they were there at all, as human lives? If you’re not, and I’ve misunderstood, then please accept my apology.

Asked at what point a baby gets "human rights," Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: ". whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, is above my pay grade."

What I’m asking, and what the point of the post is - IS it okay for [Barack Obama] to say this question should be answered by God.


My short answer: Yes. Absolutely.

For the sake of clarity: The deeper question is not when does a baby get human rights; the deeper question is when does human life begin — because obviously that question has to be answered first before you can answer a question asking when a baby gets human rights.

My point being that "When does human life begin" is the question Obama was actually answering. McCain’s answer to that question was: "Life begins at conception." Obama declined to answer the question because on both a scientific and a theological level, *he cannot know the answer with such finality or specificity.

McCain’s answer was arrogant and presumptuous. Who is he to say when life begins and how can he possibly know such a thing?

Obama, in point of fact, did not say that the question should be answered by God. He said that he, did not have the expertise to answer the question, because he was neither a scientist nor God. The question, When does life begin? is existential, not factual, and it’s wrong for public policy to turn on an arbitrary answer to that question — and any specific answer to that question is arbitrary.

So again, as I said at the top, to the question "When does life begin?" it was unquestionably okay for Obama to say that question can be answered only by God.

Murdered? Murdered by who, G*d? Or do women have such amazing control over their bodies that these are intentional and premeditated acts? But wait, no, you say the woman doesn’t even know, so premeditation is out.

Okay, so it’s not murder; it’s homicide, or involuntary manslaughter. Those don’t require intent.
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreet.wordpress.com
Obama, in point of fact, did not say that the question should be answered by God. He said that he, did not have the expertise to answer the question, because he was neither a scientist nor God.
1. Obama is not sure if it is a human or not. It is above his paygrade and beyond his expertise to make this determination.
2. Obama votes for legislation allowing/funding/etc the termination of what may or may not be a human life. He, admittedly, is not qualified to make the determination.

Given number one, should Obama vote as indicated in number two? If he is just not sure if it is a human or not, why would he vote to allow someone else to terminate it?

It takes a great deal of cognitive dissonance to state that Obama’s answer was okay, while McCain’s was not.
 
Written By: Is
URL: http://
If he is just not sure if it is a human or not, why would he vote to allow someone else to terminate it?

You can ask that question differently, as follows: If Barack Obama doesn’t feel qualified to say with certainty when life begins, why would he vote to make abortion illegal on the grounds that life begins at conception?
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreet.wordpress.com
You can ask that question differently, as follows: If Barack Obama doesn’t feel qualified to say with certainty when life begins, why would he vote to make abortion illegal on the grounds that life begins at conception?
Of course, the answer to that differently posed question is he should vote to make it illegal until such time that he is sure that a human life is not being harmed in the process.

Obama admittedly does not know if human life begins at conceptions. Maybe. Maybe not.
Obama votes in favor of and advocates the right to terminate what in his words may be a human. Yeah, that’s sound logic.
 
Written By: Is
URL: http://
You can ask that question differently, as follows: If Barack Obama doesn’t feel qualified to say with certainty when life begins, why would he vote to make abortion illegal on the grounds that life begins at conception?
Ah, because Kathy, in a decent country, you err on the side of caution, not on the side of "ooopss, my bad, we were wrong, so sorry people". If you AREN’T sure when human rights take hold, you don’t snuff out anything because - and I’m gonna say it - DUH! you don’t know when human rights take hold. .

Obama doesn’t want to make the tough call though.

McCain made the tough call Kathy, he told people what he believes, in addition to gaining the votes of those (evil nasty) people who think life begins at conception (and as benighted and ignorant as they are for holding that belief, consequently think that abortion IS murder) he LOST the vote of people like you(as if you would ever vote for him anyway), so he took a stand Kathy, which is a nice thing to see in a politician.

Obama, we don’t have a clue what HE thinks, we’re waiting for what God thinks, I’m sure there’ll be press release shortly.

You’ve already lost this one Kathy and you know it, or you wouldn’t bother to play games like this -
Are you seriously defining fertilized eggs, which have no consciousness or volition and which, if they fail to implant, leave the body without the woman knowing they were there at all, as human lives?
No, Kathy, as a matter of fact I’m not and you’re still dodging the question, which you, in fact, didn’t answer. It has not a thing to do with whether the fertilized egg is a human with rights or just a glob of growing cells that can someday be a human with rights.

Voluntary medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy
vs
doing nothing and by happenstance having it terminate itself.
Are you seriously comparing a woman’s unconscious bodily action of failing to implant a fertilized egg to be the same as her conscious choice to undergo an abortion?
That’s a yes or no question kathy, it’s pretty simple. Yes, you believe they are the same, no you don’t believe they are the same.
For the sake of clarity: The deeper question is not when does a baby get human rights; the deeper question is when does human life begin — because obviously that question has to be answered first before you can answer a question asking when a baby gets human rights.
Okay, and a new low - here’s the way biology works - when a human egg and human sperm unite and create a fertilized human egg what you have is the beginning of HUMAN life. It’s not the beginning of a dog, or a frog, or a horse. It’s the beginning of a human life, if it grows to maturity it’s going to be a human, not a dog, or a frog or a horse. No miracle is going to occur along the way that causes it be be a shark, or a cow, or a moose. If it makes it to daylight it’ll be a classified as a human. So the question of what it is is actually quite settled. That’s how human life begins Kathy.

The question is NOT when human life begins, the question is when do we consider it a human. 2 cells? 100 cells? 1000 cells? A formed nervous system? A viable fetus that can be sustained outside the womb? When?

California seems to think it’s between 11-13 weeks, because they’ve sent a person to jail for killing a ’person’ who was that old in utero.
California has taken a stand, Maryland has taken a stand, Texas has taken a stand.

Obama? Not so much you know, wouldn’t be prudent to say, let God sort it out.
Meanwhile though, feel free to kill whatever it is if it suits you.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Murdered? Murdered by who, G*d? Or do women have such amazing control over their bodies that these are intentional and premeditated acts? But wait, no, you say the woman doesn’t even know, so premeditation is out.
Okay, so it’s not murder; it’s homicide, or involuntary manslaughter. Those don’t require intent.
You’re the only one following this trail - it started with your absurd assertion that millions of women must be committing murder each month.

Here - the dictionary definition which describes what you’re doing -
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to the absurd"), also known as an apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument and derives an absurd or ridiculous outcomeand then concludes that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.

And you compound it by trying to defend it when it was absurd in the first place.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
You’re the only one following this trail - it started with your absurd assertion that millions of women must be committing murder each month.

Hey, you’re the one who implied that a fetus is a person and a child, not me. When a person dies, whether the person was murdered, or committed suicide, or died of natural causes, we usually consider that event to have some moral significance, no? So I would think that you would think it important to respond in some way to the fact that persons, or children, are dying every month because they fail to implant in the uterine wall.

The point is not the specific cause of death (murder, suicide, accident); the point is that a human life has been lost. I’d like to know why you think it’s absurd or ridiculous to point that out. What, precisely, is absurd or ridiculous? The idea that a fertilized egg that fails to implant is a human being who has died?
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreet.wordpress.com
when a human egg and human sperm unite and create a fertilized human egg what you have is the beginning of HUMAN life.

No question that the union of a human sperm and a human egg is a human fertilized egg, but it’s by no means clear or certain that it’s the *beginning* of that human life. Life does not jump-start from dead flesh. Were the sperm and egg not living and human before they came together? Why pick that particular moment (it’s not a moment anyway; human fertilization takes place over a period of 24 to 48 hours, not in a single instant) to define the beginning of life? If a fertilized egg is the beginning of a human life, then the sperm and egg, pre-fertilization, were living too, and were also the beginning, no?
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreet.wordpress.com
The question is NOT when human life begins, the question is when do we consider it a human. 2 cells? 100 cells? 1000 cells? A formed nervous system? A viable fetus that can be sustained outside the womb? When?

Actually, that is not the question. The question is whether government should be criminalizing abortions when there is no agreement on when the fetus being aborted is a human being, with personhood and the legal and human rights thereto. What right does Person A have to impose on me the belief that an 11-week-old fetus is a human being when Person B is convinced the fetus was a human being from the moment of conception, and person C thinks the fetus doesn’t become a person until viability?
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreet.wordpress.com
Kathy...please stop. With every post, you demonstrate your absolute buffoonery.

What you and all rabid abortion "rights" advocates constantly forget is the American tradition of protecting the innocent.

What could possibly be MORE innocent than an fetus?
 
Written By: Steely Matt
URL: http://
What you and all rabid abortion "rights" advocates constantly forget is the American tradition of protecting the innocent.

Number one: I see that since you cannot successfully argue that a fertilized egg or a fetus is a person, you have shifted to arguing that fertilized eggs and fetuses are "innocent." Of course, this has nothing to do with the question of when life begins, which as looker pointed out, is the subject of this discussion.

Number two: The "American tradition of protecting the innocent"? ROFLMAO!! Please, please! Don’t make me bust my gut laughing!

 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreet.wordpress.com
The question is whether government should be criminalizing abortions when there is no agreement on when the fetus being aborted is a human being, with personhood and the legal and human rights thereto
No, Kathy, the question was, why can’t Obama step up to the plate and tell us what he believes about when a human IS a human. It has nothing to do with criminalizing anything at this point, it has to do with Obama telling us what his view is without resorting to a cop out, dropping the responsibility for answering the question on a supreme being that every adult in the world knows is NOT going to actually physically, manifestly, directly, answer the question in a public forum.
You’ve had so much koolaid you think answering a direct question with a direct answer is pandering, whereas acting indecisive and enigmatic is honest.

It’s NOT an easy decision and it shouldn’t be, but since we’re asking PEOPLE to make it, not God, we ought to understand what kind of guideline the President is going to use in case he has to make a future decision that will affect the behaviors of our government on this issue.

We know what McCain thinks, what does Obama think? And the answer is - no one knows, or, and I think you prefer this one, it’s whatever you want to think he thinks.
More of the hopey changitude, long on vagueness, short on specifics.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
So I would think that you would think it important to respond in some way to the fact that persons, or children, are dying every month because they fail to implant in the uterine wall.
And in case you didn’t get the point the first time...you don’t have a clue what I believe as to when a person is a person so don’t hang your absurd argument on me, I’m not required to defend your absurd assertions about what I believe.

Does the fact I’m telling you I think your statement is absurd give you perhaps a clue that I’m not on the same page as McCain?

But at least I know what he believes.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
No, Kathy, the question was, why can’t Obama step up to the plate and tell us what he believes about when a human IS a human.

I don’t know why Obama did not give a direct answer to that question. I can’t know what was in his mind. I can speculate, which I’ve already done, and I’m assuming his reasons were similar to what my reasons would have been for refusing to answer such a question.

What I *can* say is that I’m glad he answered as he did. I would not trust any candidate who claimed to know when life begins. Just one of the many reasons I don’t trust John McCain.

It’s NOT an easy decision and it shouldn’t be, but since we’re asking PEOPLE to make it, not God, we ought to understand what kind of guideline the President is going to use in case he has to make a future decision that will affect the behaviors of our government on this issue.

And why can’t people make their own private medical or ethical decisions, in consultation with God if they wish, on their own? What guidelines does the president need for that?

Why would the president have to make a future decision about how an individual or a family chooses to handle a private medical or health issue?
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreet.wordpress.com
But at least I know what he believes.

I don’t need to know what McCain or Obama believe about when life begins. I only need to know whether they believe that the legal right to choose abortion should be a rock-solid guarantee for every woman, regardless of ability to pay, or not.
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreet.wordpress.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider