Poll: Majority of Americans Disagree With Barack Obama on When Life Begins

Life News ^ | 8/26/08 | Steven Ertelt

[wagglebee]

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Barack Obama confessed over a week ago that he wasn't sure when life begins and worried the question may be a little "above my pay grade." However, a majority of Americans know when human life begins and they agree with John McCain, who said the starting point is conception.

Zogby International conducted the poll for WorldNetDaily and it questioned 1,099 likely voters from August 22 to 24.

The survey found 59 percent believe human life begins at conception, another 16.8 percent say it happens when an unborn child can survive outside her mother's womb with medical assistance, and just 17.2 percent say human life doesn't begin until birth.

The Zogby poll asked a follow-up question about whether voters would support or oppose a presidential candidate who doesn't know when human life begins. Voters, by a 55.3-to-27.7 percent margin, said they would oppose such a candidate.

During the evangelical forum, Pastor Rick Warren asked a question phrase in a pro-life manner by querying the candidates about when a “baby gets human rights.”

Senator McCain didn’t hesitate on raising the pro-life banner and said, "At the moment of conception” while Obama took the road the Supreme Court did in 1973 saying it couldn’t know when human life begins.

"I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade," Obama quipped.

Nancy Pelosi recently weighed in on the contorversy, but her comments have gotten her in trouble with Catholic Church leaders.

[crazydad]

Sounds like the american people are wising up. The polls are so skewed that we cannot trust any one of em, come election day we will see what the americans say... But heed my warning come election night the cities will burn if ole Barack is not coronated.

[lincolnton]

17% ARE EVIL WOW-BABY FULLY DEVELOPED BUT CAN BE KILLED ACCORDING TO 17%-THIS IS HORRIBLE!!

[BigBobber]

The actual question was when does a baby get human rights, not when does life begin. This is a legal question, not a theological or scientific one. Barry is supposed to be a legal scholar. Which makes his “above my pay grade” answer even more idiotic.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I bookmarked post twenty. FRegards ....

[Mrs. Don-o]

The unborn? Hm. When I was in college, I had a professor who did not recognize the humanity of undergraduates.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, there's some scientific uncertainty as to when human life began, --- I lean towards 1,750,000 years ago in the Olduvai Gorge in eastern Africa. However there is no debate that human life is transmitted to a new generation every time a human ovum is successfully fertilized by a human sperm.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The actual question was when does a baby get human rights, not when does life begin. This is a legal question..."

But it's related to the scientific one, because the American legal philosophy is built on the affirmation that "[Men] are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights," so the question becomes either

• theologically, when were you "created," or
• scientifically, "when did you become a human entity," i.e. a member of the species of Man, Homo sapiens--- a species which, genetically, includes every man and woman, and all of their offspring.

Which reminds me of a sharp rejoinder by a friend who, when being informed by a young lady that she didn't know if the child in the womb is "human," remarked, "Oh, dear. If you don't mind telling me ... what was the father?"

[Arkinsaw]

Well, there's some scientific uncertainty as to when human life began, --- I lean towards 1,750,000 years ago in the Olduvai Gorge in eastern Africa. However there is no debate that human life is transmitted to a new generation every time a human ovum is successfully fertilized by a human sperm.

The real question is, when does a human soul attach. That is an unanswerable question scientifically. All we know is that it is some time AT, or after, fertilization and before or at nervous system connection. It can't be answered with any more specificity than that and therefore the benefit of the doubt must go to the earliest possible. This is the only way you can apply logic to this question.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"The real question is, when does a human soul attach. That is an unanswerable question scientifically."

I don't see how that's the real question which must be answered to determne when "human rights" begin --- in the legal sense.

Inasmuch as the soul is a regarded as a supernatural entity, it has, and should have, no status in law, any more than angels or demons have status in law. Neither is God, of course, subject to human law.

However, to the extent that "soul" is a kind of stand-in term for "life," --- in other words, when it s used in a non-supernatural way ---- certainly applying the principles of embryology will enable us to make the determination that an embryo is a living human organism.

Law and government have no business making any ruling on spiritual matters, per se. They can rule only on what can be naturally investigated.

".. the benefit of the doubt must go to the earliest possible. This is the only way you can apply logic to this question."

This is true. This is why every human individual (of whatever age or stage in life) must be presumed to be a legal person.

[yazoo]

Of course it begins at conception, and even if we didn’t know shouldn’t we be erring on the side of life? If life doesn’t begin at conceptions, what is the exact instant when it went from not being life, to being life? And, what exactly was it before it became life? This isn’t rocket science.