Posted on 08/16/2008 11:12:47 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
DALLAS - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama side-stepped a pointed query about abortion on Saturday by “mega-pastor” Rick Warren during a televised forum.
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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.reuters.com ...
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
But you had not problem voting on the side of the abortionist many times while in the Illinois state senate.
How any "evangelical" can even consider voting for any liberal is beyond my comprehension. I sincerely hope that all the pundits who say that vote is up for grabs this year are proved wrong this year.
Maybe Hussein simply "didn't want the burden" of answering this softball question.
Folks this is surreal. He’s running for the most important job in the world. There is no higher “pay grade” than President of the US. If answering that question with specificity is above his “pay grade” what business does he have being a US Senator let alone Commander in Chief of the most powerful military on earth, President of a multi zillion-dollar economy?
Spoken like the government worker he is.
What a train wreck. I won’t be surprised if B.O. nosedives in the polls now.
Kinda flip remark for him to be making on such a serious issue.
If something is “above your pay grade” then it means that you make no decision on it. Voting for all forms of abortion as well as for killing live infants certainly means he has made his decisions, above his pay grade or not.
And apparently, in a case where he doesn't know where life begins, instead of erring on the side of life, and being careful...he is willing, by his own admission then, to go forwards with the killing of millions of children based on his desire to gain power and cater to the feminists.
Disgusting, sickening excues for morals that.
He simply cannot admit the truth. He wants partial birth abortion and live birth abortion legal. He wants anyone like Terri Schiavo suffer euthanasia.
He wants to replace the USA with the USSA.
If he let his true desires for the country known he would be sent back to Indonesia.
What Barack Obama defended three times Live Birth Abortion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2060118/posts
Obama: “Biggest Mistake” Was Vote to Help Terri Schiavo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2062927/posts
That Obama was even allowed in the primaries is a disgrace. The DNC are enemy's of the Republic. Judases and Benedict Arnold's. The Party should be disbanded.
Agreed!
Thanks Jeff. I will visit your site again.
Polls show that a majority of "evangelicals" think Jesus was wrong when he said "I am the way and the truth and the light. No one comes to the father but thru me." I don't know if that is ignorance or willful blindness. But just because you call yourself an evangelical doesn't mean you adhere to or even believe even very fundamental Christian doctrine.
Seems to me that a lot of evangelical churches have gotten more and more to be happy-time churches that deemphasize the difficult parts of Christian theology. So I suspect we will see more and more of this.
Well, the American people and God, in that order.
I think it’s fascinating that Obama was able to give the one answer that could completely offend all people on all sides of the abortion issue at once. Most candidates who answer are sure to offend nearly 50% of the voting public based on where their convictions place them. However, Obama “artfully” offended everyone by abdicating any conviction and underscoring his not being qualified or ready to accept the highest paygrade and therefore the responsibility of his own convictions...truly amazing...my guess is this is the headline of the week!!!
I was at a birthday dinner tonight and didn’t see it: I take it that Senator Obama wasn’t his usual glib “Ich bin ein Berliner” self, eh?
“What political issue could possibly outweigh this human devastation” of 40 million deaths through abortion? “The answer, of course, is that there is none. … It is time to put away the arguments of political spin masters that only serve to justify abortion killing. We have heard a great deal this year about the need for change. But at the same time we are told that one thing cannot change – namely, the abortion regime of Roe vs. Wade.
“It is time that we demand real change, and real change means the end of Roe vs. Wade.”
Carl Anderson, Knights of Columbus - Annual Report
http://kofc.org/un/eb/en/convention_2008/newsroom/skreport.html
You can watch it on C-SPAN website here:
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx
 |
|
the good works bunch...the ones who are a big chunk of Warren's followers.
as a Southern Baptist, I warned ignorant (proper use not demeaning) freepers that Evangelical did not mean conservative going back to Harriet Meirs and later Mike Huckabee.
lotsa Catholics, Jews, and Piscerpalians think Evangelical means hard right culture warrior like me...not true...some are the kumbaya variety..like PCUSA or UCC
Evangelical in plainspeak means emphasis on born again and prosyletizing...
smug pinga cabeza he is...
my thoughts exactly.
Obama should be a fringe looney only supported by the ANSWER crowd...not by one of the two major parties and fawned over by the media and Hollywood.
Video - Obama in his own words, he does not have expierence to be President. I would love to see McCain use this in an ad, and end it with, “I’m John McCain and I agree with and approve this message.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6syUD1I4U
"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.”
Freudian slip....... Translation...... "I am not fit to be president."
Yeah, Michelle better keep her day job at the hospital. The Obamas are going to need it.
Thanks for your post very much.
I’ve got some great news for you.
Science proved “with specificity” when life begins long ago. It is not a matter of Religious Faith. It’s a scientific fact that cannot be refuted. If we educate the people, the slauughter will end. See below. I also invite you to download the entire curriculum for free at
http://www.cpforlife.org/curriculum.htm
What does modern science conclude about when human life begins? (Excerpts)
By Dr. John Ankerberg and John Weldon
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0805W3.htm The complete article is available in print friendly PDF format at: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP3W0805.pdf
The scientific authorities on when life begins are biologists. But these are often the last people consulted in seeking an answer to the question. What modern science has concluded is crystal clear: Human life begins at conception. This is a matter of scientific fact, not philosophy, speculation, opinion, conjecture, or theory. Today, the evidence that human life begins at conception is a fact so well documented that no intellectually honest and informed scientist or physician can deny it.
In 1973, the Supreme Court concluded in its Roe v. Wade decision that it did not have to decide the “difficult question” of when life begins. Why? In essence, they said, “It is impossible to say when human life begins.” The Court misled the public then, and others continue to mislead the public today.
Anyone familiar with recent Supreme Court history knows that two years before Roe V. Wade, in October 1971, a group of 220 distinguished physicians, scientists, and professors submitted an amicus curiae brief (advice to a court on some legal matter) to the Supreme Court. They showed the Court how modern science had already established that human life is a continuum and that the unborn child from the moment of conception on is a person and must be considered a person, like its mother. The brief set as its task “to show how clearly and conclusively modern science—embryology, fetology, genetics, perinatology, all of biology—establishes the humanity of the unborn child.” For example,
In its seventh week, [the pre-born child] bears the familiar external features and all the internal organs of the adult.... The brain in configuration is already like the adult brain and sends out impulses that coordinate the function of other organs…. The heart beats sturdily. The stomach produces digestive juices. The liver manufactures blood cells and the kidneys begin to function by extracting uric acid from the child’s blood.... The muscles of the arms and body can already be set in motion. After the eighth week… everything is already present that will be found in the full term baby.
This brief proved beyond any doubt scientifically that human life begins at conception and that “the unborn is a person within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
Thus, even though the Supreme Court had been properly informed as to the scientific evidence, they still chose to argue that the evidence was insufficient to show the pre-born child was fully human. In essence, their decision merely reflected social engineering and opinion, not scientific fact. Even during the growing abortion debate in 1970, the editors of the scientific journal California Medicine noted the “curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.”
In 1981, the United States Congress conducted hearings to answer the question, “When does human life begin?” A group of internationally known scientists appeared before a Senate judiciary subcommittee.
The U.S. Congress was told by Harvard University Medical School’s Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, “In biology and in medicine, it is an accepted fact that the life of any individual organism reproducing by sexual reproduction begins at conception....”
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, Jr., of the University of Colorado Medical School, testified that “the beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political or economic goals.”
Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School noted: “The standard medical texts have long taught that human life begins at conception.”
He added: “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty... is not a human being. This is human life at every stage albeit incomplete until late adolescence.”
Dr. McCarthy De Mere, who is a practicing physician as well as a law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: “The exact moment of the beginning [of] personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.”
World-famous geneticist Dr. Jerome Lejeune, professor of fundamental genetics at the University of Descarte, Paris, France, declared, “each individual has a very unique beginning, the moment of its conception.”
Dr. Lejeune also emphasized: “The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.”
The chairman of the Department of Medical Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, Professor Hymie Gordon, testified, “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
He further emphasized: “now we can say, unequivocally, that the question of when life begins… is an established scientific fact…. It is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.”
This Senate report concluded:
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.
In 1981, only a single scientist disagreed with the majority’s conclusion, and he did so on philosophical rather than scientific grounds. In fact, abortion advocates, although invited to do so, failed to produce even one expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any other point than conception.
Again, let us stress that this is not a matter of religion, it is solely a matter of science. Scientists of every religious view and no religious view—agnostic, Jewish, Buddhist, atheist, Christian, Hindu, etc.—all agree that life begins at conception. This explains why, for example, the International Code of Medical Ethics asserts: “A doctor must always bear in mind the importance of preserving human life from the time of conception until death.”
This is also why the Declaration of Geneva holds physicians to the following: “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.” These statements can be found in the World Medical Association Bulletin for April 1949 (vol.1, p. 22) and January 1950 (vol. 2, p. 5). In 1970, the World Medical Association again reaffirmed the Declaration of Geneva.
What difference does it make that human life begins at conception? The difference is this: If human life begins at conception, then abortion is the killing of a human life.
To deny this fact is scientifically impossible.
bookmark
I’m currently reading a biography of Lincoln.
It is distressing to compare the “bottom-of-the-barrel” intellect of Obambi to the giants of the past.
Video no longer available at YouTube :-(
First off, I can’t imagine any earthly thing being above the US President’s pay grade: nuclear football, judicial appointments, access to intelligence briefings, commander in chief— you name it. This verbal flub staggers the mind.
I noticed another aspect to this when searching for confirmation:
“Funny! When he was a senator in Illinois, where, presumably he was paid to think before he voted on matters of substance, where it wasn’t “above his pay grade”, he voted against human rights for babies that survived an abortion. Did he thoughtfully consider the matter then, or has he forgotten what little experience he has as a legislator? (Too craven to speak his mind gets MY vote!)” — blogger screen named “Proof”.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/above_my_pay_grade_obama_ducks_human_rights_question/#comments
He was his usual Ich bin ein beginner self...
I think that this race is a gift from God. Now we have a verbal slip by Barackula— the ultimate prochoice candidate, making a verbal slip that no prochoicer will appreciate — it exposes the illogic of the pro-death movement. If I could have wished for a democrat candidate, someone this vulnerable would not even have come to mind. Will he survive his convention? I truly hope so.
“I think it’s fascinating that Obama was able to give the one answer that could completely offend all people on all sides of the abortion issue at once.”
“...by his own admission then, to go forwards with the killing of millions of children based on his desire to gain power and cater to the feminists... “
I just knew you would have a strong response.
[Sorry for the redundant ping on another thread.]
“I think it’s fascinating that Obama was able to give the one answer that could completely offend all people on all sides of the abortion issue at once.”
I’m still laughing at that remark. So true!
“A president doesn’t have the luxury of demurring on this subject and so his answer, in addition to being an evasion, is also a cop-out.”
I think it’s a route. He has fled the field. His prochoice base must feel abandoned by their champion. Someone prochoice— especially someone who favors live birth abortion— can only lead through sounding convinced that the child is not alive. Otherwise, we are ‘possibly’ committing murder through abortion. And anyone who wants to take pot shots at a moving shadow can hope it’s a deer, but that’s criminal negligence.
I didn’t watch the forum, so don’t know the context of this remark, but when I read it I took it to mean that the decision about when life begins is God’s.
I don’t think the pay grade remark referred to the Presidency. I think it was intended to mean that it was above his pay grade to play God. So on this particular issue, he won’t take a moral stand. Although he doesn’t seem to mind taking moral stands on just about every other issue pertaining to government intrusion into private lives.
Either way, it was a flippant answer which could be taken in many different ways, none of them positive.
[Was laughing to hard to remember my own response!]
Well if he won’t answer a simple question directly, I guess we’ll have to refer to his voting record to figure it out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
