Skip to comments.Obama “pay grade” comment purposely ignores SCIENTIFIC FACT that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION
Posted on 08/18/2008 4:56:08 AM PDT by cpforlife.org
In 1981, a group of internationally known scientists appeared before a Senate judiciary subcommittee to answer the question, When does human life begin? Their answers are below and make Pro-Aborts very uncomfortable. But nowhere near as uncomfortable as the last moments of life will be for the 3,500 babies who will be aborted tomorrow.
At the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, Rev. Rick Warren asked both candidates the question: At what point does a baby gets human rights. McCains answer was direct At the moment of conception.
Obamas answer was the non-answer heard round the political world. His voting record is solidly Pro-Abortion and as an Illinois senator he defended Live Birth Abortions for three years. So why didnt Obama answer at birth or at birth as long as the mother does not want the baby to die?
answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade..
No Sen. Obama. Answering that question with specificity would abort your campaign.
We must hammer home the SCIENTIFIC FACT that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. We have to take control of the language used in the abortion debate. We must stop Pro-Aborts from confusing the issue by claiming the question about the beginning of life is a theological matter. It is biological science.
And abortion itself is a civil rights issue.
I will not be voting for any pro-abortion candidate.
What does modern science conclude about when human life begins? (Excerpts)
By Dr. John Ankerberg and John Weldon
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0805W3.htm The complete article is available in print friendly PDF format at: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP3W0805.pdf
The scientific authorities on when life begins are biologists. But these are often the last people consulted in seeking an answer to the question. What modern science has concluded is crystal clear: Human life begins at conception. This is a matter of scientific fact, not philosophy, speculation, opinion, conjecture, or theory. Today, the evidence that human life begins at conception is a fact so well documented that no intellectually honest and informed scientist or physician can deny it.
In 1973, the Supreme Court concluded in its Roe v. Wade decision that it did not have to decide the “difficult question” of when life begins. Why? In essence, they said, “It is impossible to say when human life begins.” The Court misled the public then, and others continue to mislead the public today.
Anyone familiar with recent Supreme Court history knows that two years before Roe V. Wade, in October 1971, a group of 220 distinguished physicians, scientists, and professors submitted an amicus curiae brief (advice to a court on some legal matter) to the Supreme Court. They showed the Court how modern science had already established that human life is a continuum and that the unborn child from the moment of conception on is a person and must be considered a person, like its mother. The brief set as its task “to show how clearly and conclusively modern scienceembryology, fetology, genetics, perinatology, all of biologyestablishes the humanity of the unborn child.” For example,
In its seventh week, [the pre-born child] bears the familiar external features and all the internal organs of the adult.... The brain in configuration is already like the adult brain and sends out impulses that coordinate the function of other organs . The heart beats sturdily. The stomach produces digestive juices. The liver manufactures blood cells and the kidneys begin to function by extracting uric acid from the childs blood.... The muscles of the arms and body can already be set in motion. After the eighth week everything is already present that will be found in the full term baby.
This brief proved beyond any doubt scientifically that human life begins at conception and that “the unborn is a person within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
Thus, even though the Supreme Court had been properly informed as to the scientific evidence, they still chose to argue that the evidence was insufficient to show the pre-born child was fully human. In essence, their decision merely reflected social engineering and opinion, not scientific fact. Even during the growing abortion debate in 1970, the editors of the scientific journal California Medicine noted the “curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.”
In 1981, the United States Congress conducted hearings to answer the question, “When does human life begin?” A group of internationally known scientists appeared before a Senate judiciary subcommittee.
The U.S. Congress was told by Harvard University Medical Schools Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, “In biology and in medicine, it is an accepted fact that the life of any individual organism reproducing by sexual reproduction begins at conception....”
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, Jr., of the University of Colorado Medical School, testified that “the beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matterthe beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political or economic goals.”
Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School noted: “The standard medical texts have long taught that human life begins at conception.”
He added: “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty... is not a human being. This is human life at every stage albeit incomplete until late adolescence.”
Dr. McCarthy De Mere, who is a practicing physician as well as a law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: “The exact moment of the beginning [of] personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.”
World-famous geneticist Dr. Jerome Lejeune, professor of fundamental genetics at the University of Descarte, Paris, France, declared, “each individual has a very unique beginning, the moment of its conception.”
Dr. Lejeune also emphasized: “The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.”
The chairman of the Department of Medical Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, Professor Hymie Gordon, testified, “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
He further emphasized: “now we can say, unequivocally, that the question of when life begins is an established scientific fact . It is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.”
This Senate report concluded:
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human beinga being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.
In 1981, only a single scientist disagreed with the majoritys conclusion, and he did so on philosophical rather than scientific grounds. In fact, abortion advocates, although invited to do so, failed to produce even one expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any other point than conception.
Again, let us stress that this is not a matter of religion, it is solely a matter of science. Scientists of every religious view and no religious viewagnostic, Jewish, Buddhist, atheist, Christian, Hindu, etc.all agree that life begins at conception. This explains why, for example, the International Code of Medical Ethics asserts: “A doctor must always bear in mind the importance of preserving human life from the time of conception until death.”
This is also why the Declaration of Geneva holds physicians to the following: “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.” These statements can be found in the World Medical Association Bulletin for April 1949 (vol.1, p. 22) and January 1950 (vol. 2, p. 5). In 1970, the World Medical Association again reaffirmed the Declaration of Geneva.
What difference does it make that human life begins at conception? The difference is this: If human life begins at conception, then abortion is the killing of a human life.
To deny this fact is scientifically impossible.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
If Obama has no empathy for the innocent Unborn who says he will be Compassionate to living folk
the depth of the stupidity of this answer is not apparent on first reflection. It wasn't even pointed out as a gaffe by the Fox analyzers at half time as they praised BO's performance. I'll admit, it must have come between so many hems, haws and ums, I missed hearing it myself as I listened.
Sometimes, life tosses us a question that we have to answer... above our pay grade... or not. If we ignore it... we give darker forces time to formulate their own answer and ultimately... the final word.
Thus Obama cannot take issue with the assertion that life begins at conception.
He has conceded that a fetus might be a living human being.
If a fetus might be a living human being, then aborting it is killing a human being.
What is his justification for allowing what might be killing a human being?
According to Politico, Pickens called our future Pres. in for a chat Sunday morning.
bump bump bump
Did anyone see Fox and Friends this morning w/ Ralph Reed and Joel Hunter? Hunter is my EX pastor. I left because of his left leanings.
He claims obama was ‘technically right’ because the bible doesn’t specify when life begins!! I honestly couldn’t beleive some of the things he said (oh yes I could).
That the crowd was just looking for ‘amen’ moments so McCain was bound to do well there.
That they came out ‘even’.
That abortions haven’t dropped at all with any pro life policies in place.
John Hagee has an awesome 3 part series going on; started yesterday and will go for 2 more weeks, on ‘Vote the Bible’. It’s excellent and a good way to tell people the issues without telling them WHO to vote for. It’s just obvious.
Cover of 1965 issue of LIFE Magazine. The issue, published eight years before the lies of Roe v Wade covered in detail the scientific facts of life in the womb with amazing imagery.
Sen. Obama. You cannot be both Christian and pro-choice on abortion. The two are diametrically opposedpolar opposites. If you think you are both you are living a lie.
If life doesn’t begin at conception, then why is it illegal to kill the fetus of protected animals? Try crushing the eggs of a song bird and see what the federal government does.
“I left because of his left leanings.”
If McLame selects a pro- baby murder candidate for his VP I don't know what I'll do.By the time the muslim-communist trojan horse and his minions get finished after four years it would take a revolution to get this country back on track again.
It is time that we demand real change, and real change means the end of Roe vs. Wade.
The “pay grade” comment shows just how much Uhbama is out of his league when it comes to the presidency. He tried to be clever with a comment that began to be heavily used as a political tool I think back in the 90’s for a subject where it does not fit. This is Uhbama. A guy who is simply trying to get over by phrases like the “pay grade” comment, by putting meaningless terms like “fast-track” into his campaign advertising and the like. He is an invention of the Phlegmocrat Party and hardly worthy to be head of the PTA, much less the POTUS.
Induced Abortion is the Number One Cause of Death In The United States. According to the US Center for Disease Control the leading causes of death in the US in 2002 were: Abortion 1,290,000 Heart disease 710,760 Cancer 553,091 Stroke 167,661 Chronic lower respiratory tract disease 122,009 Accidents 97,900. AIDS was not even in the top 10 causes with 17,544 reported deaths.
...and Obama’s answer to the christian question was weasely enought to be non-threatening to any moslem.
It is truly amazing how Obama could say so little with so many words, while McCain said so much with just a few.
Bookmarked. FRegards ....
“....above his paygrade....”
Give me a break - HE NEVER EVEN HAD THE NUTS TO ANSWER THE GIVEN QUESTION. A simple answer, either a) at conception or b) at birth - which one is it?
While abortion is hideous enough, even pro-choice people should understand what judicial activism is doing to our law. Pro-choice judges attack our bill of rights— seeking to elevate treaties above our basic rights. Kelo is a good example of what pro-choice justices get us.
I hope he's only building up drama by keeping everyone in suspense.
I think what most people are missing is that B-O’s answer ALSO allows him to suggest that only God knows the answer without actually having to mention God. He is attempting to have it both ways...believers infer that he is deferring to God, while non-believers infer that he is deferring to scientists.
Mr Obama, since our LAWS cannot be as undefined as your non-answer, and MUST SPECIFY when life begins in order to say
legal here, illegal there,
and you’re running for the CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER of the United States,
I believe that it is necessary for you to clearly define your belief in what those laws should be.
So, again, when in your belife should it be defined that life begins and is worthy of the protection of law?
Shouldn’t a bi-racial candidate at least be familiar with Margaret
Sanger and Planned Parenthood’s racist policies?
94% of the baby death camps are placed in minority neighborhoods!
6% of the population (black women) receive 36% of abortions.
If he had any
core values, he wouldn’t have any problems answering questions like these.
Here’s how it works:
Bounce question off your core beliefs and answer accordingly.
Here’s how a leftist works:
Bounce question off your core beliefes, determine if the public in general will consider that answer abhorrent, and avoid it if so.
Notice I’m not saying that he has no core beliefs, I’m saying his core beliefs would be considered abhorrent to the public.
“the life of any individual organism reproducing by sexual reproduction begins at conception.”
The new individual’s life begins at conception. He/she is not a mass of cells living as a parasite off the mother, as radical feminazis say.
No we mustn't. Sperm are alive and eggs are alive. Life doesn't spring out of unLife.
And Life is also a legal term and the abortion issue is also a legal debate. It doesn't do any good to purposively confuse the terms and confuse the issue, especially when you don't have to.
This reminds me of the pro-drug war people criticizing the "victimless crime" argument, saying people who abuse drugs are too "victims". They confuse the terms, "victimless" is first a legal term.
In our legal system, there are times that taking a life is legal. So, saying every life requires absolute legal protection is nonsense and a losing argument. It also turns off people, who fear that religion is going to be enacted into law.
You've got to know your audience, you've got to make arguments that will appeal to them.
Either you're being disingenuous, or your grasp of science is incredibly weak. Science cannot determine when "life" begins, because the term itself is open to interpretation. Science can determine when brain waves begin, when a heartbeat is likely to continue independenet of the mother, when cells divide, etc. However, it's an arbitrary decision when to label it "life". As you point out yourself, it's about the terminology ("control the language"), not about science.
Someone pointed out yeaterday that there are 57 states in the Islamic council ... perhaps Obama doesn’t know how many US states there are BUT he is quite familiar with how many states there are in the ISlamic council!
Late to the thread, and haven’t read all the posts closely. What kind of an answer is this “above my pay grade” nonsense? BHO is running for the Presidency of the USA. There is no “higher pay grade” than this. The POTUS is asked to make life and death decisions that affect large numbers of people. If he ain’t up to the pay grade, don’t apply for the job. This is a hard question only for those who don’t want to admit the obvious. The “ProChoice” crowd needs the old tag of “ProAbortion”. Facts are facts. State for the record that they are willing to disregard the life of the unborn child. Don’t nuance around about this possibly not being “life”.
There are pluses and minuses to the influx of foreign cash for democrat candidates: it brings money back into the country from those to whom we’ve paid it for oil and foreign aid; the influx of millions and millions goes to strengthen the media which is paid to promote these marxist democrats.
That was a good point. He supports and votes for a philosophy that posits that people don’t have “human rights” until they’re born. Why not just say that?
**It is truly amazing how Obama could say so little with so many words, while McCain said so much with just a few.**
McCain has gravitas and is ready to be the Presdient as well as the Commander in Chief.
Expect a landslide for McCain. (My prediction)
Obama Says Right to Life Coalition Is Lying About His Record
Barack Obama Says Pro-Life Group Lying About His Pro-Infanticide Votes
Obama's infanticide problem>
Obama and McCain Woo Catholics
Obama's Christian Creds Vs. Abortion and Infanticide
Obama's 10 reasons for supporting infanticide
Mommy Won't Help Dems on Abortion
Abortion Leader Confirms that Democratic Platform is More Pro-Abortion than Ever
Obama More Than An Abortion Radical
Obamas Abortion Lies (Obama cover-up on born-alive survivors bill)
Life with Obama: Abortion champion
Knighting the Catholic Vote (K of C urging Catholics to vote pro-life)
Linda Chavez: Obamas Catholic problem
Catholic Voters and 2008
Barack Obama Supports the Murder of Newborn Infants
Obama Lied About Abortion Record
What Barack Obama defended three times: Live Birth Abortion
[OPEN] Supreme K of C Calls for Real "Change" on Abortion and Catholic Revolt against Obama Nation
Obama's Catholic Problem ( Linda Chavez )
Obamas View on Abortion May Divide Catholics ( "May Divide?" )
Obama loses 26 points among Catholics
Barack Obama's Wife Michelle to Join Hillary Clinton at Pro-Abortion Dinner
OPINION: Senator Obama and the Wall of the Womb
Barack Obama's Pledge to Overturn Every Pro-Life Abortion Law One Year Old
Obama Worse than Clintons on Abortion Says National Right to Life Leader Interview-SCOTUS Critical
Roman Catholics for Obama '08
OBAMA TO CATHOLICS: NO VOUCHERS
How can Catholics for Obama rationalize their support for the pro-choice candidate?
Obamas director of Catholic Outreach dodges opportunity to reach Catholics
Barack Obama Slams John McCain For Opposing Abortion, Activist Judges
Catholics and Obama
COMMENTARY: Quandry for Catholics At Election Time
The Latest Refinement (Obama on Abortion)
CNN Runs Biased News Story Covering Up Barack Obamas Pro-Abortion Record
Jill Stanek: Obama's biggest lie about supporting infanticide
The Battle for Catholic Voters
New Report Indicates Voters Most Interested in Barack Obamas Position on Abortion
Deal Hudson: Obama and Infanticide?
Ad asks Obama: If fatherhood begins at conception, when does life begin?
Embryonic stem-cell research immoral, unnecessary, bishops say
Catholics should not vote for Obama
Catholic Caucus: It is a sin to vote/support Obama/DNC [abortion]
More Catholics leaning towards Democrats, poll reports (really not Catholics)
The Catholic-Obama Problem (Pope Benedict XVI instructs Catholics about pro-abortion candidates)
Obama's Abortion Bombshell: Unrestricted Abortion....
NARAL Catholics Line Up for Obama
Editorial: Disagreeing with Doug Kmiec One More Time
State-Funded Embryo Research "Makes Taxpayers Complicit in Killing", say Bishops
McCain Meets Privately with Fr. Pavone - Says Constitutional Right to Life Applies to Unborn
Faithful Citizenship: Catholic Vote is very sought after
Has Obama dissolved his Catholic advisory council?
Commentary: Faithful Citizenship and the Formed Conscience
Catholic League: Where's Obama's 'Catholic Advisory Council'? [Not to be found!]
Right-wing Christians beginning to lean left (Misleading headline)
Catholics Debate Obama Vote
US Bishops Urge Voters to Give Priority to Life [Ecumenical]
Corralling the Catholic vote: Political necessity or pipe dream?
DOUG KMIEC: Catholic Reasons for Hope in the General Election
EDITORIAL: Why This Catholic Dreads the Campaign
The Catholic-Obama Problem (Pope Benedict XVI instructs Catholics about pro-abortion candidates)
Thoughts On Roman Catholics For Obama
How Obama's Catholics Will Dodge the Infanticide Question
Catholic Pro-Life Leader Feuds With Barack Obama's "Catholic" Backers
McCain and the Pope: McCain cannot win in November without the Catholic vote (Reagan re-visited?)
Catholics Cannot Vote for Pols Who Support Abortion, Except for Morally Grave Reasons: KY Bishops
That's from my son's 8th grade Life Science book.
A doctor who cannot tell the difference between a live embryo and a dead one is --- at the very least --- unqualified to be an OB/GYN.
From your keyboard to God's monitor!
//I will not be voting for any pro-abortion candidate//
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.