Skip to comments.Obama Flunks Rick Warren's Abortion Question
Posted on 08/19/2008 12:48:11 PM PDT by Publius804
Obama Flunks Rick Warren's Abortion Question
by Deal W. Hudson
Here's a truism: If you're running for President, don't answer a question by saying, "That's above my pay grade." After all, if you want to occupy the White House, there is no higher pay grade. You are the boss, and the buck stops with you.
But Barack Obama used precisely that expression when asked by Rick Warren at what point "a baby gets human rights." Obama 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."
How can a man who has voted three times on the Born Again Infant Protection Act be unable to answer that question with "specificity"? Does he mean that he voted against BAIPA without having an answer to that question? But then what did he base his vote on?
Obama made the telling mistake of pitting the truths of science against the truths of theology. He seems to think there are two truths in contradiction to each other. And his implication is clear: Theology teaches life begins at conception, but science sees it differently.
(Excerpt) Read more at insidecatholic.com ...
I thought Obama was much more cunning than that.
I’m beginning to think that, because of a lifetime spent in the company of far-out lefties, Obama discovered that there’s such a thing as a pro-lifer only recently—and he’s never really talked to one. And he’s not very bright.
Obama admits he doesn't know - fine. So how does he justify ending what may be life?
Science sees it differently?
I saw a thread about how science has proved through DNA testing, that a human exists at the time of conception, as a distinct, separate, human being.
Are they being as obtuse as Obama? He was clearly making a reference to God, but being careful not to name Him for fear of infuriating his base.
The Buck Stops at some higher pay-grade
(Just where does it stop? The editorial board of the New York Times?)
Obama has core beliefs, and he’s smart enough to know that he can’t be honest about them.
Everyone seems to forget that in 2004 Obama said the Pesidency is above his pay grade.
Video - Barack Obama says will NOT run for President 2008 election because he lacks experience
I would love to see McCain use this in an ad, with a simple I’m John McCain and I agree with and approve this message.
And if that baby's born again, Obama will let that baby be killed again.
How long before some pro-abort comes out and says that surviving abortion doesn't count as an actual birth, i.e., the baby wasn't really born, just removed from womb, and is still subject to the mother's "wishes".
I am seeing a lot of congruence between Obama’s behavior and thinking, and the thinking of a radical, West-hating Muslim. E.g. kill the infidel children (abortion). Unrestricted immigration into the Lands of War (Dar al-Harb). etc.
Look up Princeton professor Peter Singer - he is very concerned about animal rights, but would not deem a newborn baby outside the wome a “person” until about a month or so after birth.
We’re already well down the slippery slope.
wome = womb
Your comment says it all..
That should be "Born Alive...
Boxer, in the Senate record, states that the baby isn’t really a baby until “maybe when they take it home”.
Obama, on the Illinois Senate floor, stated that this (BAIPA) bill would be “to much of a burden on the woman”.
Your hypothetical is not hypothetical.
OH, don’t put it past them.
The left despises Christians a lot!
If he medical definition of death is the absence of brainwaves and a heartbeat, than the definition of life is the presence of brainwaves and a heartbeat.
You're assuming he uses logic. A reminder: Obama is a Democrat.
I have the audio of that clip.
It plays everytime I start my computer. It makes the few Obama supporters around me visibly uncomfortable when they hear it.
I like it because its his own words.
Dat Milhous! A real CUT UP !!!
Good work, Phil ...
You all have moved away from the central abortion-rights-activists doctrine, which has nothing to do whatsoever with “when does life begin?” That USED to be the issue, but in more recent years, the issue the pro-abortion people use as their platform is that it doesn’t MATTER when life begins. A mother has a right to give birth or to NOT give birth to anything inside of her because it is HER BODY and her reproductive rights trump any other scientific or religious issue. She doesn’t have to have any reason. She is supreme in the right to give birth or not — right up until delivery at ANY month gestation.
THAT is the abortion movement’s message. They moved on from “when life begins” long ago, since that has an obvious answer. It is the mother’s rights alone that count. That’s it. Nothing else.
Barry Osama whatever-his-name-is knows when life begins. And he knows, as a man who does CLAIM the name of Christ as his Savior, that abortion is murder at ANY week or month of pregnancy.
Rick Warren should have phrased the question differently and then it would have been much easier for Obama to answer.
What he should have asked was:
“At what point does a baby stop being a fetus and become a punishment?”
Obama would be able to figure that out easily.
What’s all this nonsense of asking the Obamessiah questions in the first place? He’s a leftist and he’s black. Therefore he should be the president. If you don’t think so, just ask Katie Couric or Chris Mathews.
Here's how I see it.
The fact that you have to end it proves that it's a life. Or the other way around: if it weren't a life, you wouldn't have to terminate it.
I think I learned this in ninth grade. For Bambi to say it's above his pay grade is insane. It's basic science.
Oh, I can answer that!
It’s when the woman/girl starts to “show” and is embarrassed by it
or can’t fit into her prom dress.
Ever cornered a “pro-choicer” with logic
and had them simply hold up their hand, lower their head,
and say “a woman has the right to choose”?
It’s not a defensible position.
Great! He escaped from the hussein asylum.
I had an interesting conversation with an intelligent young lady who refuses to red meat because she loves animals and doesn’t feel that they should be harmed. She is also pro-choice. I asked her “why is it that alot of you pro-choice people care so much about the suffering of animals, but not of humans?” She also doesn’t believe in the death penalty. I asked her why the life of a guilty criminal is more important than the life of an innocent baby. She had not answer, just that it is in between the mother and God.
I agree. But “a woman has a right to choose” is all they have. And I don’t ever argue with anyone about abortion. “It’s a child, not a choice” is all I HAVE.
By the way — I have a sister who murdered her child at about 24 weeks of pregnancy at 20 years old. We grew up as pastor’s kids — she had turned her back on her faith and family entirely at that point. She had NEVER had any sign whatsoever of mental illness — until the abortion. Within a few months, she began to literally lose her mind, out of deep-seated guilt that sent her into the darkness of clinical & chemical manic/depression, of which she suffers with to this day, some 15+ years later. She told me once in a moment of clarity that there is a part of her that is glad for the horror of mental illness since the abortion, since it makes her feel at some level that she is serving a life sentence for the life she took, knowing it was murder. That tore me up that she felt that way, since I know she has asked for and receive forgiveness from God for what she did. I know that God can heal her mind and emotions if she’s willing, but it seems she finds some level of “comfort” in knowing that she just couldn’t go on with her life, after ending the life of another.
Abortion destroys more lives than just that innnocent child’s.
I don't really think that works as an argument. You could say that a tumor has to be killed and therefore you are ending a life.
The analogy doesn’t work for me. A tumor doesn’t develop into a person.
You do not “terminate” or “kill” a tumor...you remove it. I know — I’ve had four large ones removed from my abdomen (non-cancerous).
No doctor says they are “removing a fetus” in doing an abortion. And of COURSE tumors are not independent life sources either, with brain and cardiac activity.
The BLENDER worries me!!
Vlad Pukin’ ??
- - - - - -
That's too bad. There are some excellent arguments out there that go way beyond this, and are irrefutable - that's why I get the raised hand, lowered eyes, etc - often.
Look up the "SLED" abortion argument.
And if you'll suffer a mild rebuke:
1 Peter 3:15 - "...always be ready to give an answer..."
And, in reading the rest of your post -
I really am sorry that women have to suffer so, due to a choice that society says is consequenceless.
In my experience, I have seen just two outcomes, neither neutral. One, as you have described, lifelong horror and mental anguish.
The other is worse, however, as it perpetuates the evil, and I would be these women are just as tortured.
The other case is where the woman becomes a lifelong abortion advocate in order to justify her choice. I even know of a case where a woman changed her career path in order to become an abortionist in order to “help” others make the same decision.
I think I know how to defend the sanctity of life pretty well, thank you.
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.