Posted on 08/23/2008 12:38:29 PM PDT by wagglebee
"At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Most people have a ready answer to this question. A "pro-life" supporter will generally point to conception, while a "pro-choice" proponent will often point to birth. There are a variety of opinions, but the average person does have an opinion. Not Barack Obama. He wouldn't answer this most basic question about human rights.
Senator Obama's response to Reverend Rick Warren's question during the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency was, "Well, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade." He went on to state that he is "pro-choice", but that both sides should "find common ground" by seeking to "reduce the number of abortions." Still he refused to answer the question of what constitutes a human being worthy of rights and protections.
You would think a man who studied at Harvard and Columbia and who is running for the office of President of the United States would have taken the time to figure out his position on this controversial question. After all, abortion remains one of the most polarizing issues of our time. This single issue is dispositive—one way or the other—for millions of voters. Perhaps that accounts for the ambiguity.
If Mr. Obama is ambiguous about the issue, the scientific evidence is not. Science demonstrates unequivocally that life begins at conception. Within 24 hours after fertilization the human egg begins to divide, producing more and more cells. Through this process, the embryo and the outer membranes which nourish and protect it are formed. When the egg is fertilized, 23 chromosomes from each parent join to form the 46 chromosomes of a unique new person. These chromosomes will dictate many of the child's physical characteristics, including sex, eye and hair color, height, and even intelligence to some extent. This process is simple, yet profound, and it occurs at conception.
Notwithstanding the uncontroverted scientific evidence, Senator Obama insists he simply is not qualified to form an opinion on when a baby becomes a human. Perhaps his refusal to answer the question is rooted in a desire to hide the implications of his voting record. While in the Illinois Senate, he first voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, and later refused to bring it forward in committee for a vote. This Act would have mandated medical care for babies who survive an attempted abortion (they are "born alive"), and it would have prevented hospitals and doctors from putting these babies aside to die. The national version of this bill—the Born Alive Infant Protection Act—passed through the U.S. House with only fifteen dissenting votes, and it passed through the U.S. Senate unanimously. Even the extremist abortion advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America did not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Nevertheless, Senator Obama, proving to be more extreme, opposed the Illinois bill, thereby denying legal protection for these babies.
Refusing medical care to babies who are born alive after a failed abortion is infanticide, plain and simple. Barack Obama's rhetoric and voting record indicate he believes otherwise. The Senator, who once equated having a baby to being punished, feels that denying a woman and her doctor the right to kill her newborn child would wrongly burden the woman. He summed up his opposition by saying, "What we are doing here [with this bill] is to create one more burden on a woman and I can't support that."
Senator Obama's voting record doesn't end there. In the Illinois Senate, he opposed the partial-birth abortion ban, and in the U.S. Congress he co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act which would have removed nearly all state and federal restrictions on abortion. He also voted against legislation in Congress which would have required an abortionist to notify the parents of an underage girl seeking an abortion. If Senator Obama is incapable of determining when a baby gains human rights, why is he capable of making these weighty legislative decisions?
Truth be told, Senator Obama appears to have preferred bobbing and weaving to offering a straight answer. A straight answer was inevitably going to alienate at least one group of voters who hold strong views. But is that the kind of leadership America needs? Ambiguous answers in the face of hard questions?
Please Mr. Obama. Tell it to us straight. At what point does a baby get human rights? Lives depend on the way you answer that question.
This needs to be repeated EVERYWHERE!
Pro-Life Ping
Democrat answer: When it can vote.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
..depends on who’s asking and when (BHO)
When he learns to speak English?
That's the leader I want: somebody who is so moved by his own children that he'll go out there and fight for everyone else's.
Ladies Home Journal - September, 2008
“The whole mistake of the pro-abortion people from the start, he said to himself, was the arbitrary line they drew. An embryo is not entitled to American Constitutional rights and can be killed, legally, by a doctor. But a fetus was a “person”, with rights, at least for a while; and then the pro-abortion crowd decided that even a seven month fetus was not “human” and could be killed, legally, by a licensed doctor. And, one day, a newborn baby - it is a vegetable; it can’t focus its eyes, it understands nothing, not talks… the pro-abortion lobby argued in court, and won, with their contention that a newborn baby was only a fetus expelled by accident or organic processes from the womb. But, even then, where was the line to be drawn finally? When the baby smiled its first smile? When it spoke its first word or reached for its initial time for a toy it enjoyed? The legal line was pushed back and back. And now the most savage and arbitrary definition of all: when it could perform ‘higher math’.” (at age 12)
At age 18 : )
Obortion
You want to know the government answer to this......
ask the IRS.
You and I know it’s at conception but not the IRS.
Lets see, in Obama's mind maybe after the baby turns 18 and only if the BABY joined the DEMOCRATS or COMMUNIST party.
“depends on who’s asking and when (BHO)”
He’s going to be asked this question during the debates and hopefully in a way worded not to let him avoid the issue. This needs to be highlighted and spotlighted by the opposing side as often as possible.
What many citizens today fail to reason through is that the so-called "right to choose," is an invented euphemism of recent decades designed to mask the ugly act of "destroying" the life and liberty of the child in the womb. So was the use of the word, "fetus," which is so much less personal than the word, "baby." By those euphemisms, an artificial right was bestowed by unelected justices of the Supreme Court of the United States on only one class of citizens (women) to destroy the Creator-endowed, therefore "unalienable" life and liberty of an as-yet-unborn citizen.
This question is the most important one to be considered in the 2008 election of a President.
Consider the logic utilized by those who say they personally oppose taking the life of the child in the womb, but believes in the trite and tired old phrase of "a woman's right to choose."
Why could a 70-year-old daughter not use the same reasoning to apply to a "right to choose" to get rid of an elderly mother whose care is threatening her own health? (And don't say it is not realistic to claim the health risk that many face!)
Or, why should the nation's law not provide that same "right to choose" to both men and women who consider another individual to be a threat to their personal health or wellbeing, an inconvenience to their lifestyle, or merely a burden they cannot take care of?
Clearly, America's laws against the taking of life do not allow for a citizen's "right to choose" murder as an optional way of solving a personal dilemma, no matter how perplexing or burdensome.
Unmask the faulty logic of the fence sitters, and let them articulate what is their real reason for favoring the taking of a life in the womb! Is it not possibly because they do not see children in the womb as beings "endowed by their Creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
The candidate who is most likely to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand this basic principle underlying our liberty and the American Constitution is the only logical choice to lead this nation, in this voter's humble opinion!
For later.
When Michelle was carrying.....as her stomach grew, did nobama wonder if she was carrying a fetus-puppy, fetus-homosepien, or what? If someone had hit her with a car which would have forced the loss of what she was carrying in her stomach, would nobama call the loss of it,a “what”? Would he have sued for the loss of a “what”?
“When he learns to speak English?” Or when he gets his green card?
Fertilization or implantation, depending on your view. Those are the valid ones imho.
Apparently, when it survives the murderous onslaught of caring and feeling abortionists, liberals, do-gooders, and general-all-around-thinking-and-caring-humanists.
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.