Even though their has been plenty of ink and pixels spilt over Sen. Obama’s answers at the Saddleback church and his questioning afterwards, I want to add my own .02 cents (adjusted for inflation).
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.
Now I have come to expect silly answers from any pro-abortion politician on the subject of abortion. This though takes the cake because if you accept this answer you have to take in with it a bunch of other conclusions.
- One thing is that obviously he knew he would get a question on this topic and prepared what he thought this was a slick answer in front of an Evangelical audience. Yes a United States Senator, supposed constitutional scholar, and president wannabe considers this question above his paygrade. I doubt if he would say Roe v. Wade was above the paygrade of the Supreme Court and that it was a subject limited to scientists and theologians.
- If he actually believed what he said this means that he is an abortion supporter even though he does not know when a baby gets human rights. You think you might want to get that little detail down first. But I guess he errs on the side of death.
- When a baby gets human rights is not a scientific question in the first place, but a philosophical one. The fact that human life begins at conception is a scientific one and one that embryology textbooks backup. The philosophical conclusion derives from the scientific one, but the scientific method can not detect a human right. But this is a matter of the natural law and certainly does not require revelation to know the truth about it as Obama’s answer also somewhat implies.
With such an answer I certainly hope the presidency remains above his pay grade. Now Sen. McCain got the answer right when he stated that it begins at conception. Now if only he could make the logical conclusion that his limited support of ESCR is thus immoral.
Later that same night Sen. Obama when asked about the charges made by the National Right to Life Committee replied:
"They have not been telling the truth, and I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying."
What he should have done ala Clinton is wag his finger and say "I did not have vote against that bill" because it is another equally outright lie. Not only did he know he was lying he was willing to calumniate the NRLC for political reasons. Deal Hudson predicted that this charge would have to be answered quite quickly and sure enough the lie was so bad that even the Obama campaign had to acknowledge that the bill he voted against in the state senate was identical to the Federal bill that was passed unanimously. Though previously the campaign had denied the evidence that NRLC has turned up In the same interview he had also said
…I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion.
… withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies common sense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it’s an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond.
…It’s one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it’s another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they’re wrong. And that’s what’s been happening.
Well he is doing a good job of misrepresenting his opinions all by himself. But he is right that his vote "defies common sense and id defies imagination." Though the response by the Obama campaign does not go far enough. Sen. Obama should personally apologize to the NRLC for his calumny instead of letting flunkies make a statement. This likely will not happen since his track record is never to admit a mistake such as saying he would not vote for the surge even in hindsight after it proved successful. The campaign is now taking a new tact on the infanticide issue and saying Obama voted against it because it was unconstitutional (the Federal version passed Supreme Court challenge) and that it would have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Even if this was true what Obama’s vote says is that he is willing to allow even infanticide to protect abortion rights. That he would vote against a bill that even NARAL did not oppose.