Posted by
The OttO Show on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 5:00:00 PM
Thanks to
Andrew for this Seed addressing Barack Obama's handling of
an abortion question from Rick Warren at Saturday's televised
Saddleback forum shared with opponent John
McCain:
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.”
Obama dodged a
question? Say it isn't so! Decisions to triple the
capital gains tax during an economic downturn and to invade Pakistan to
get bin Laden demonstrate that economic and foreign policy issues are
above your pay grade too, Senator. But that isn't stopping
you from saying it.
This is a vital question to the
abortion debate and one that helped push me more into a pro-life
position. What did it for me is that everyone (except Obama)
has a view on when abortions should and shouldn't be permitted and they
all vary. Typically, the positions seem to depend on what
stage of fetus the target is. But there is no substantive
measurement to this. It's quite arbitrary and I've had scores
of discussions with people where I've tried to get them to clarify why
it's okay at 'x' weeks but not okay at 'y' weeks. In the end,
the result is the same so does it really matter if it's nine days or
nine months?
Pro-life arguments focus on the
life at hand. Pro-choice arguments focus on the mother which
makes their side of the debate on when a life is determined to have
value rather interesting because it is possibly the rare exception to
focusing on the mother. And it suggests why so little about
that side of the abortion argument actually deals with the would-be
aborted. It's a lose-lose argument for them anytime the issue
of life or the value of life or the magic date when a baby is more of a
baby than a fetus is part of the discussion.
It's rather pathetic that this wonderful politician isn't prepared
to answer a key question about perhaps the most bitterly divisive issue
this country deals with year in and year out. What - he was
hoping that it just wouldn't come up? Or he just hasn't given
it that much thought?
The next president will be
appointing anywhere from two to four Supreme Court Justices.
In that context, he will be setting up policy and interpretations
directly impacting Americans for at least the next few
generations. He had damn well better show that he has some
insight on this issue.
John McCain didn't have a problem
answering the question. That's what happens when one has
beliefs, even if expressing those beliefs risks alienating potential
voters. McCain could answer the question because his was one
of only two answers that make sense: Rights for babies either
begin when the baby exits the birth canal or - as McCain believes - at
conception.
McCain solidified his pro-life
background.
Obama might have tried defining some
magic time for when a fetus is considered worthy for
protection. And that would have been a lie. In
fact, his actual response was a lie. He didn't answer the
question because his answer is on the other side of the spectrum from
McCains. Obama doesn't believe he is "above the pay
grade" to profess a belief; Obama believes that Rights
kick in when the cord is cut though he professed to support
restrictions on late-term abortions. However...
Obama opposed the 2007 Supreme Court
decision in Gonzales v. Carhart that upheld
partial-birth abortion bans, a brutal, unnecessary act that happens to
fall under the umbrella of late-term abortions. He opposed it
on the grounds that it threatened the entire institution of abortion
and Roe v. Wade. He believes that there are no Rights until
that baby is born. He simply doesn't have the political
courage to state it. He can't even weasel-word it to make it
sound more appealing than it is.
Obama co-sponsered
the FOCA bill which would virtually strip away all restrictions on
abortion. He opposes parental notification laws; he supports
taxpayer funded abortions; he opposes waiting periods; he opposes
protections for babies born from failed abortion attempts; while he
supports government funded health care he opposes government funded
health care for unborn children.
That, according to Hillary Clinton, is when he had the
courage to take positions. Early on in the primary battle,
the Clinton campaign accused Obama of voting
"present" on seven different pieces of anti-choice
legislation during his time in the Illinois State Senate.
That basically says, yeah - I'm
here. I'm just not going to go on record on this
one.
It should be no shocker that Obama has
a 100% rating from NARAL and a 0% rating from NRL. So why the
artful dodge? What's to hide? Doesn't it suggest
that even he is aware of how troubling his own record and position on
abortion is?
Way to stand up for women's
rights! The movement deserves more of these kinds of acts of
raw courage. l