Obama's pay grade

8/18/08 | moi

[Bryan24]

“At what point does a baby get human rights?”

(The obvious answer for Obama)....

“Well, there is certainly disagreement over the abortion quesion, but I think we ALL agree that a baby has rights when it leaves the womb....”

Obama can’t say that, because Jill Stanek and his history over the Illinois Live BIrth legislation would come back to bite him in the butt.

Probably withoiut realizing it, Rick Warren neatly boxed Obama into a horrible ethical situation. He had to demur on even offering an OPINION because his past actions show that he believes even a new-born baby, if intended to be aborted, has no human rights.

The ethical implications of Obama’s positions on abortion are staggering. He couldn’t answer without indicting himself as either a liar or a murderer.

[barb-tex]

Law Professor offers, like other parts of BHO history, starting with his birth certificate, seem hard to verify.
barbra ann

[rawhide]

Doesn’t being pro-choice indicate what you think the answer is?

[DManA]

Well, it was in the New York Times so it must be true. </sarcasm>

[Sgt_Schultze]

Obama obviously doesn't have the gravitas needed for the office he seeks.

Why isn't the MSM asking the question (about gravitas) they asked in 2000 about W?

[Barb4Bush]

Things will be really slow here at Free Republic when only the perfect people start posting.

[Barb4Bush]

Being pro-choice does not indicate when human rights begin. Some people that are pro-choice would say definitively that human rights begin at birth. Obama is not one of those people. He beleives that a baby that survives an abortion is not entitled to medical care at least that's how he voted in the Illinois legislature.

[rawhide]

My point was that if you are pro-choice, then you do not believe life begins at conception. If you are pro-choice, then you believe it is okay to murder a baby anytime up to the time that you yourself believes a baby becomes a life.

[Poincare]

He was asked "At what point does a baby get human rights?"

IOW, When does a baby become "Our Posterity" assured "the Blessings of Liberty"? It is a question of the meaning of the Constitution which he is PAID to uphold and defend.

[Pistolshot]

[LearsFool]

Are you kidding me? People are being murdered by the millions in this country under the protection of "law". The people of this "self-governing" nation have been precluded from ending this massacre. And you would balk at formalities of government conspicuously and with regularity ignored?

The office of President is charged with upholding the Constitution. And this man tells us he doesn't even know who warrants its protections??

Above his pay grade? The question of whose life merits protection is in the "pay grade" of every rational human being.

There is a law above the murderous Court: the Constitution. And there is a law above it: the Declaration. And there is a law above that: the natural law written by the Creator.

Don't tell me the president has no power he can wield in an effort to turn this nation back to that "natural affection" which shudders and is outraged at the butchery of its young. His duty is to execute the laws of this nation - of which the Declaration is the first.

If he's not man enough to do so, if he's so much a coward as to not only build his political career on the dismembered corpses of innocent babies, but then try to weasel his way out of admitting it...well, what more can you say about such a person?