One of the most disturbing comments at the Saddleback Forum was Obama’s attempt to be clever in his answer to Warren’s rather straightforward question “When does life begin?”. The future Presidential candidate stated that it was “above his pay grade” to answer such questions. This offhanded attempt at humility brought another question to the foreground. If you have no idea who is and is not alive, why would you even attempt legislation in the area? Perhaps Nancy Pelosi has answered that question for us. She essentially states that whether a baby girl is alive in the womb or not is irrelevant to her mother’s decision to terminate her little life. Below is a quote from Sunday’s Meet the Press.
Brokaw: …“I if [Obama] were to come to you and say ‘help me out here, Madam Speaker, when does life begin,’ what would you tell him?
Pelosi: “I would say that as an ardent practicing Catholic this is an issue that I have studied for a long time, and what I know is over the centuries the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition. And St. Augustine said three months. We don’t know. The point is it that it shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to chose.”
Pelosi and Obama demonstrate the savage nature of this illusory discussion. The obscure banner “the right to choose” must be qualified. What is the choice? ANSWER: The right to choose to kill off lifeless tissue OR the right to choose to kill a little girl (or sometimes a little boy). Under the intellectually disingenuous guise of women’s rights, abortion advocates display a social hierarchy that is chilling at best. Under this hierarchy, all unborn little girls are potentially persona non grata.
However, Pelosi’s comments and Obama’s own legislative pursuits have moved to the next logical and horrifying step. It seems that at least an element in the DNC (and most likely in the RNC as well) is willing to move the discussion from “where life begins” to “whose life matters anyway.” There is no mistaking this shift. Pelosi and Obama – Whether a baby is alive or not has nothing to do with whether or not you kill her.
No surprise really but profoundly disturbing all the same.
[ht for the Meet the Press quote:Theologica]
I have the hardest time responding, at length, to an issue like abortion. I’m nearly incapable of objecting because my mind does not know how to face such a vexing syllogism. I could very easily, on the surface, agree with a statement like ‘a woman should have the right to choose.’ But once it is clear what choice they want to be able to make-my tongue shrivels into the back of my throat and I feel frozen; I simply don’t know how to begin to address ideas like that. A rational mind can’t follow the logic; it seems a political mind doesn’t need too. I see no difference between these statements ‘a woman should have the right to choose’ and ‘a man should have the right to molest,’ or ‘a child should have the right to choose’ (to lance the back of their parents necks while they sleep). There is no difference!
By: Joe Humphries on August 27, 2008
at 9:18 am
Jeff, Your post is right on the money. Your point is a profound one. In fact, the actual wording of the question and answer at Saddleback makes your point all the more plainly. If I have the transcript correct, the wording went like this:
“At what point does a baby get human rights?” —Rick Warren—“I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is above my pay grade.” —Barack Obama
Notice, the question was, “when does a baby get human rights?” A very easy answer to that question for O. would have been all babies have full human rights from birth onward. This would have avoided the abortion issue altogether (sure, it’s a dodge and misses the point…). But the awful truth is that Obama couldn’t even say all babies have human rights from birth because his work in Illinois is a testimony against human rights for living babies. In Illinois he approved of infanticide, not just abortion.
Apparently the salary of a senator is not high enough to pass judgment on a law that would protect living babies from being thrown in trash cans. Of course, he will get paid more as President. So, maybe then…
By: doccochran on August 30, 2008
at 10:59 am