The following is from the "debate" on Saturday night at Saddleback Church:
Question: Senator Obama, as a pastor I have to deal with this all the time, all the pain, all the conflicts. I know it is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?
Senator Obama, presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States: "You know, I—I, eh, er – I think that whether you're looking at this from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is above my pay grade."
Is that really the best answer Senator Obama could give? This is a presidential debate, and Obama can't give an answer to this question. Anyone who has thought about this issue has an answer for it. I would like to think that Senator Obama had some sort of answer to this question when he voted against abortion legislation as an Illinois State Senator. Rich Lowry writes today:
"In 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation that he would sign as president. The act would not only codify Roe v. Wade, but wipe out all current federal, state, and local restrictions on abortion that pass muster under Roe, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion. This is not the legislative priority of a man keenly attuned to the moral implications of abortion."
This is the "legislative priority" of a man who has a very definite belief on abortion. As a state senator, Obama voted a number of times against pro-life legislation. In the Illinois Senate, he voted against protecting the rights of babies who survived an abortion and were born. Think about this point for a minute. A baby survives an abortion and is born into the world. However, because the mother intended for the baby to be aborted, the doctor should kill the baby. Most people would do whatever they could to protect this newborn baby. Obama voted against protecting the baby more than once. He felt these babies had no rights and deserved no protections. He thought doctors shouldn't be required to provide life saving treatments to babies who were outside the womb.
His answer Saturday night was dishonest and repulsive. For someone who is running for President of the United States to take a serious question about a serious issue such as abortion and simply respond with, "…that is above my pay grade," should show the American people that the Senator is not ready to be President. Maybe we should all do Senator Obama a favor and keep him at his current pay grade in November so he won't be overwhelmed with these questions.
4 comments:
One thing I liked about McCain, at least he gave a definitive answer on this question. Regardless of his politics, at least it was a definitive answer.
I agree. I also think most voters agree. The most recent polls have McCain leading Obama by 6 points, or McCain and Obama tied. In a year that should be all Democrat, those are really bad numbers for Obama.
Dream on.
It's 2008. It seems to me that if you look around a little bit, you'll find out that voters have a concern or two that ranks above abortion on their agendas. The reliable old Gopper bogeymen of the past aren't going to be any more effective in 2008 than they were in 2006. Johnny's working furiously to create a new one in Georgia, but as more news comes out of there that bogeyman is also destined to wither. Voters want some definite answers about Iraq, the economy, and inflation-and Johnny gives them definite answers. Too bad his answers change almost every day.
Oh, and there was ONE poll that had that number, and it has been an outlier all year. Some people do pay attention-and no, watching "Hannity and Colmes" does not count.
So, is McCain going to allow pregnant women to claim their zygotes as deductions on their tax returns? I mean if they are people and all...
Post a Comment