[MHGinTN]

What Rick ACTUALLY asked him was, "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Rick didn't ask about a fetus, he asked about a baby, the name given a born infant! Obama changed the focus to create a confusion he assumed would give him wiggle room.

Obama's non-answer (he typically voted present in IL, not yes or no) of 'above his pay grade' followed an obfuscation of what Pastor Warren asked!

You see, Obama likely expected a question regarding his stance protecting the evil of killing infants born alive by neglecting them until they struggle and die. What Obama had been programmed to do was immediately misdirect the discussion away from his actual defense of this evil (three times in the IL legislature), to obfuscate over the supposedly more ambiguous question of when a conception becomes a human being!

Rick Warren asked the precisely correct question to expose Obama's history of opposing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in IL. Obama had been programmed to change the question focus to the more nebulous question of when the newly conceived become 'functional' human beings. He's still trying to divert attention from his actual record of defending the killing by neglect of forced birth preemies.

Democrat Party ghouls have been protecting their defense of slaughtering the alive unborn by diverting away from obvious truths that Americans can and will agree upon, to confuse the issues using this same diversion tactic. Obama knew he would be asked about his defense of this evil way to kill preemies and he instictively changed the question to address the pre-planned misdirection which has kept this evil in our midst.

What Obama could have said to defend his repeated opposition to a born alive infant protection act? He had no option but to change the focus, to try and confuse the issue, because he has defended the killing by neglect of terminating pregnancies! He has proven with his legislative work tyhat he doesn't believe a born infant should have human rights unless the female extends them to the child.

Obama does not agree with the concept of unalienable right to LIFE. Warren exposed this with his question and Obama did his usual shuffle switch to answer something he was programmed for not what was actaully asked.

[bereanway]

Agreed. Unless one takes a militantly materialistic view of reality it is impossible to justify Obama’s votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I haven't read the transcript of the Saddleback debate but “above my pay grade” when asked about the person-hood of a baby is stunning. If Obama isn't capable of answering such a question one has to wonder if he has the moral basis from which to analyze any situation which involves issues of ethics and morality. Which ultimately in one fashion or another impacts directly upon many decisions he would be forced to make as president.

It appears that he is devoid of any moral compass and must then rely upon some sort of pragmatic or utilitarian philosophy which in the long run always leads to disaster.