Obama “pay grade” comment purposely ignores SCIENTIFIC FACT that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION

[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.” McCain’s answer was direct “At the moment of conception.”

Obama’s 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 didn’t 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.

[vpintheak]

Anyone calling themselves a Christian need only to look up a few Bible passages, and they will have their answer. Christ Jesus righteous anger at the swindlers selling things in the temple has nothing on the anger of whole-sale slaughter of innocent beings HE has created.

[MrB]

And, if you take the morally squishy route of

“I’m not sure when life begins”

what does it say about your moral character when you err on the side of killing something that you’re not sure is NOT human?

Of course, you can “logic trap” a leftist. They are “comfortable with contradiction”.

[MrB]

errr... you CAN’T “logic trap” a leftist.

[cpforlife.org]

Thanks for your 48. I get so furious with that kind of stupidity you took care of that I normally have to ignore it. Thanks!

[Mrs. Don-o]

You're absolutely right.

In the classic "Hunters in the Underbrush" scenario, two hunters are out in the woods hoping to bag some deer. They become separated, and before long, one hunbter sees some movement in the bushes. He can't see what's making the bushes move. It could be his fellow hunter; it could be a deer.

Ethics question: Is he ethically permitted to shoot?

And the answer, class, is "No." Class, you cannot shoot unless you are morally certain that you are not endangering a human life. In doubtful situations you are always required to give "the benefit of the doubt" to human life.

Obama claims to be an advocate of human rights: but his whole philosophy appears to be built up on a firm foundation of absolutely nothing. He doesn't know what a human being is. He doesn't know that human rights begin when human life begins, and human life begins at the beginning.

To put it simply, at the level of Obama's pay grade: human life is transmitted from generation to generation. And it is transmitted with every act of human reproduction which results in fertilization. If an offspring has been begotten, human life has been successfully transmitted to a new generation.

And --- "Pay grade?" --- excuse me. The Presidency of the United States is not an entry-level trainee position.

[MrB]

For some reason, I cannot look at “pay grade” on an Obama thread without seeing “gay parade”.

Anyway, he’s asking to be hired for THE HIGHEST pay grade in the world,

and the question of when life begins, in this context,

is a MATTER OF LAW,

which he, as highest Executive, is charged with enforcing.

He MUST answer this question, or not be qualified for the office.

[loboinok]

Sen. Obama. You cannot be both Christian and pro-choice on abortion.

You are saying that of a black American who is a member of a political party that for decades, refused blacks their humanity, citizenship, civil rights and liberty.

A black American who admires Supremacist Margaret Sanger, founder of the eugenics movement (the fetus of planned Parenthood) whose aim was to wipe out blacks.

A black American who disagrees with a Dred Scott SC that denied blacks were human or entitled to citizenship, yet agrees with a Roe v Wade SC that denied babies were human or entitled to citizenship or life.

He's contradictory and hypocritical across the board.

[brwnsuga]

I wish there was another candidate out there that I could vote for. Hopefully McCain picks a Pro-life candidate.

[Jabba the Nutt]

I'll leave the other stuff off. The nub of my point is that "Life" is a legal term. At what point does a sperm, an egg, a fertilized egg, a zygote, etc. become a "Life" with legal protection?

Repeating the that mantra that Life begins with conception is to confuse the terms and confuse the issue. Adding in the scientific definition of living does us less than no good. Do we have absolute protection for all living things? This goes beyond even PETA territory into Jainism. Jains sweep the road ahead of them to avoid stepping on bugs. They're alive after all.

[arthurus]

"Life" does not begin at conception. Life began when God said. Or for those who can't accept that, when the first protovirus precipitated out of the primeval ooze. Life has been a continuous stream since that moment. An individual human existence, a particular life, begins at the moment of conception.

[Mrs. Don-o]

My point here is not that the law must protect "all life" (as the Jains do) but that a live embryo can be objectively distinguished from a dead one, and a human embryo can be distinguished from a non-human one.

Every individual in whatever stage of the human lifespan should be recognized as a "person" in law; otherwise, any socially disfavored individual or community (blacks, Jews, children, the autistic, the congitively impaired, alcoholics, the obese, what-have-you) can be excluded from the recognition of "human rights," the most fundamental of which is the right to simply go on living.

[Moby Grape]

Deciding WHEN life begins is above his pay grade, but deciding when life should END is not.

[aruanan]

Every individual in whatever stage of the human lifespan should be recognized as a "person" in law; otherwise, any socially disfavored individual or community (blacks, Jews, children, the autistic, the congitively impaired, alcoholics, the obese, what-have-you) can be excluded from the recognition of "human rights," the most fundamental of which is the right to simply go on living.

If “human being” is a later stage of an individual’s existence, then what is the name for the being started at conception and ended at death? On the individual level, pro-life people call it human whether conscious or not, crippled, retarded, senile, diseased, sinful, intelligent, female, or male. Pro-abortion people permit “quality of life and “value to society” to define the parameters of being human and those who have the power to do so to define those terms, whether a woman and her physician, N.A.R.A.L, or Big Brother.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Exactly. Otherwise, human rights are not “inherent” and “inalienable” but merely based on temporary variances imposed by the powerful and enforced by the edge of the knife.

[Jabba the Nutt]

"My point here is not that the law must protect "all life" (as the Jains do) but that a live embryo can be objectively distinguished from a dead one, and a human embryo can be distinguished from a non-human one."

Yes, this is a question of science or to use the old term, natural philosopy.

"Every individual in whatever stage of the human lifespan should be recognized as a "person" in law; otherwise, any socially disfavored individual or community (blacks, Jews, children, the autistic, the congitively impaired, alcoholics, the obese, what-have-you) can be excluded from the recognition of "human rights," the most fundamental of which is the right to simply go on living."

Please go on, how is this going to work? Will the socially disfavored be arrested and forced to under go abortions? If so, abortion is the least of our worries here, because this will obviously be under a brutal totalitarian regime.

So, getting from your first sentence to the next just doesn't work. And why does no one address my point that "Life" is a legal issue, not a scientific one? Is what I'm asking so far out? So unintelligible?

We can legally kill adult people. If someone is putting your life at risk, you can, if that's pretty much the only option, kill their adult butt. Don't the murderers have a right to life?

[Mrs. Don-o]

["Humans," per se, must be recognized as "persons" or] ...any socially disfavored individual ....can be excluded from the recognition of "human rights"

"Please go on, how is this going to work? Will the socially disfavored be arrested and forced to under go abortions?"

Disabled infants being intentionally killed by medical neglect, e.g. Downs babies being set aside to die by esophageal atresia. Brain trauma patients being sentenced to death by court order (e.g. the 2005 Florida case.) . Black people deprived of both life and liberty by U.S Supreme Court (Dred Scott decision.) Allegedly feeble-minded persons being forcibly sterilized (USSC Buck vs Bell.) Those are just examples that have happened or are happening in the USA. Then, of course, there's the whole Untermenschen extermination pushed by the National Socialists in 20th century Europe.

All of these are specific instances of what happens when a legal system fails to affirm that human rights and human life are coterminous.

"Why does no one address my point that "Life" is a legal issue, not a scientific one? "

I don't see how this has not been "addressed": not by agreement, but by rebuttal. The whole point of the article is that legal principles must be informed by the scientific facts. Do you think the the state has the authority to create two classes of human beings, one with rights and one without? This is one of the central themes of tyranny.

"We can legally kill adult people. If someone is putting your life at risk, you can, if that's pretty much the only option, kill their adult butt. Don't the murderers have a right to life?"

You can't legally kill adult people without due process of law. If someone is putting your life at risk and you "kill their adult butt," be prepared to answer for it to the police. The circumstances will be investigated; you may not be charged; or you may be brought to trial and acquitted; but don't think the court will consider it to be a matter of your own personal choice.

Yes, murderers have a right to life. They do not automatically and invariably get a death penalty. In this country, it's up to te jury to decide, via due process of law, whether any particular murderer has forfeited that right by his own deliberate and exceptionally heinous criminal actions.