Obama Flunks Rick Warren’s Abortion Question


Here’s a truism:
If you’re running for President, don’t answer a question by saying, “That’s above my pay grade.” After all, if you want to occupy the White House, there is no higher pay grade. You are the boss, and the buck stops with you.
But Barack Obama used precisely that expression when asked by Rick Warren at what point “a baby gets human rights.”
Obama said, “Whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity . . . is above my pay grade.”
How can a man who has voted three times on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act be unable to answer that question with “specificity”? Does he mean that he voted against BAIPA without having an answer to that question? But then what did he base his vote on?
Obama made the telling mistake of pitting the truths of science against the truths of theology. He seems to think there are two truths in contradiction to each other. And his implication is clear: Theology teaches life begins at conception, but science sees it differently.
Isn’t this supposed to be the faith-friendly Democratic candidate for president? The fact is, those who hold to Obama’s ideology have come to the conclusion that human life does not begin at conception, regardless of what theology and science both teach. 

 


Doug Kmiec is right
to point out that the desire to uphold a woman’s right to choose is what has determined Obama’s outlook on abortion. This is why the phrase “abortion should be safe, legal, and rare” was taken out of the platform of the Democratic Party.
As Kmiec, an Obama supporter, puts it, “To impose either safe, or legal, or rare is, to him, to have the government displace the woman’s freedom.” Furthermore, “as [Obama] sees it, Roe is not an endorsement of abortion, so much as an affirmation that abortion is a moral question for which only the potential mother can give answer.”
Passing over the issue of whether the father should have any say in the matter, it’s strange indeed that a choice about life and death should be awarded, free from interference, to a single person. Where is the unborn child’s advocate? In the world described, the child has no advocate; the mother’s freedom is inviolate.
Kmiec and others have said Obama is a “different type of candidate.” But I don’t see much of a difference here at all: For Barack Obama, a woman’s right to choose trumps every other constraint.
That sounds like the standard pro-abortion argument to me.

Deal W. Hudson

By

Deal W. Hudson is president of Catholic Advocate, an organization which engages and encourages faithful Catholics to actively participate in the political process to support elected officials and policies that remain consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Formerly publisher and editor of Crisis Magazine for ten years, his articles and comments have been published widely in publications such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, and U.S. News and World Report. He has also appeared on TV and radio news shows such as the O'Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes, NBC News, and All Things Considered on National Public Radio. Hudson worked with Karl Rove in coordinating then-Gov. George W. Bush's outreach to Catholic voters in 2000 and 2004. In October 2003, President Bush appointed him a member of the official delegation from the United States to attend the 25th anniversary celebration of John Paul II's papacy. Hudson, a former professor of philosophy for 15 years, is the editor and author of eight books. He tells the story of his conversion from Southern Baptist to Catholic in An American Conversion (Crossroad, 2003), and his latest, Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States, was published in March 2008. He is married to Theresa Carver Hudson, also a Baptist convert, and they have two children, Hannah, 21, and Cyprian, 13, who was adopted from Romania in 2001.

  • James

    Mr. Hudson knows that Senator Obama was not refering to the pay grade of the POTUS. Senator Obama was refering to the Ultimate Pay Grade, the One that is infinitely higher than that of a mere president. Senator Obama gave the same answer, minus the (Ultimate) pay grade reference, during the Compassion Forum with Senator Clinton.

    It is not the business of presidents or governments to stipulate when life begins. A couple of U.S. medical associations (NOT medical dictionaries) cover the scientific side of the issue of when life begins. In a country where there is freedom of and from religion, the theological side of the issue varies from religion to religion, from individual to individual.

    When a president, or any other office holder, sticks to finite matters appropriate to his/her pay grade, s/he does not stipulate when life begins.

  • James

    It is not the business of mere presidents or governments to stipulate when life begins. A couple of U.S. medical associations have addressed the scientific side of the issue very adequately. In a country where there is freedom of and from religion, the theological answer varies from religion to religion, from individual believer to individual believer.

    Senator Obama was not refering to the POTUS pay grade. He was refering to the Ultimate Pay Grade, one infinitely higher than that of any mere president.

  • James

    Lord, even when I’m tired, please help me to be more patient and more trusting that my comments will appear so that I won’t comment twice in the future. [smiley=happy]

  • JC

    But the definition of human life is not a matter of religion or any particular religion. It is the liberals who, since before _Roe_, have tried to frame this as a religious question: Clinton says he learned to be pro-choice at Georgetown because of quickening & St. Thomas; even one of the justices in _Roe_ tries to frame abortion as a First Amendment issue.

    But it’s not a religious issue at all. *Whether there is an immortal soul* is a religious issue. When a human being is a human being is an issue of science and philosophy.

    But that wasn’t even the question. The question was when a baby has “rights.” If “rights” are “above the president’s pay grade,” then the president is relinquishing his duty of safeguarding the Constitution to–whom?–the UN?

    That said, what Obama says about abortion is no different than what every other Democrat has said for 40 years about abortion.

    Obama isn’t “different”; it’s the audience that’s changed.

  • MaureenG

    Seems to me that Obama’s definition is based on political expediency and maintaining funding flow from the abortion industry. Why care about the childs’ life? The abotion industry says that it’s of no consequence, only the “choice” of the mother matters.

  • JanieO

    Regardless of your position on Life, one must be concerned that in 2008, someone can deny the science that life begins at conception!! If it doesn’t, then why is Obama concerned about the moral decisions involving abortion, but even more embryonic stem cell research. How is Barack Obama different in his approach to the life issues than Ahmidijad is to the Holocaust? The both deny scientific data and the testimony of others to persue their own agenda. How could we possibly consider electing a man who is a Life Denier – regardless of your personal views on the politics of abortion. Even Planned Parenthood and NARAL don’t go that far!!!

  • Charles Miller

    Then let his actions speak for Sen. Obama.

    His words may be inconsistent or vague, but his voting record is not. I love to see how many of the same individuals on this site come to Sen. Obama’s defense time and again, but the facts remain and his voting has been consistently pro-choice, and (borrowing from Deal Hudson) pro-infanticide.

    What a man says or doesn’t say simply doesn’t matter, only how he acts. That is true for faith, morals, and day-to-day living. The President is not excused from this either.

  • Lupana

    He obviously meant that deciding when life begins is a matter for God and not him to determine.

  • Robert Mosby

    The case that a baby is human and hence has a right to life is both more obvious and more humane than that a slave is human and hence has the right to be free. We know that Obama would never assert (with all the apparent humility at his disposal) that the latter is “above (his) pay grade’.

    This contrast reflects his inability to resist the hard feminist zeitgeist, which would entail electoral uncertainties. This last above all he strives to avoid. It also trumps the absurd claim that Obama is “a new kind of politician”. He is instead merely a prima facie more attractive but very hard left politician of the commomn variety.

  • R.C.

    Deal is Correct.

    Yes, obviously God’s “pay grade” is higher than any president’s. (For that matter, the actual pay of many C.E.O.s or even medium-sized business owners knocks the U.S. president’s salary into a cocked hat.)

    And, yes, obviously a president does not decide what the truth about a child’s human rights is, any more than he decides whether the world is round or flat.

    But that just goes to show you how absurd Obama’s answer is. If we asked a prospective president — or, heck, a prospective cartographer — whether he world was flat or round, and he answered, “Well, it’s not up to me to dictate whether God forms the world as a pancake or as a globe,” we’d all shout, “NEXT!” in unison, wouldn’t we?

    Obama was asked: “When does life begin?” …which is to say, “When, in your opinion, does God cause a baby to be ensouled such that the being in question is entitled to all the rights of any other human?”

    And Obama, knowing perfectly well the meaning of the question, chose to evade it, answering, “Well, it’s not up to me to dictate to the Lord when He should do that.”

    The correct follow up would be, “Nobody ever thought you would, or could, Barry. We’re not asking whether you issue commands to God. We’re asking what you think God actually does.”

    And selecting an opinion to hold on that topic is not above the pay grade of a president. Technically it’s not above the pay grade of a police officer (sworn to “Protect and to Serve”).

    For the answer to that question bears directly upon the scope of a president (or policeman’s) duties: As the nation’s “chief law enforcement officer” (or else his boss and the one who selects him) and as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, Who am I to protect, to defend?

    Furthermore, we all know it is a critical item in selecting federal judges and Supreme Court Justices. The people of the U.S., on both sides of the question, want and expect a president to select “their kind” of Justices. No thinking man can run for office without having faced the question.

    Sure, Obama may not be 100% convinced of when, exactly, rights begin. Fine. But for practical policy matters, he is required by the duties of the presidential office to choose, one way or the other.

    Faced with a hard choice and the risk of giving an unpopular answer, he ducked. He weaseled. He…

    Bravely ran away, away!
    When danger reared its ugly head,
    He bravely turned his tail and fled,
    Yes, brave Sir [Barack] turned about,
    And gallantly he chickened out,
    He is packing it in and packing it up,
    And sneaking away and buggering up,
    And chickening out and pissing off home,
    Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge…

  • perryj

    Mr. Obama continues to embarrass the United States.

    I believe everyone understands that he was attempting to defer to God concerning abortion; however, the country is faced with a decision. He can not avoid answering questions under the guise that it is a question for God. This is not a theoretical exercise. He will be faced with this question and needs to make it clear to the America public where he stands. The answer to this question is scientific and is clear. This is not a religious question. Does a child have a right to life or not. Very simple and direct, Mr. Obama voting records shows that a child does not have a right to life. Even if it is born alive, one may discard it and let it die.

    The morality of our country continues to erode. The United States continues to lose its place in the world. Some may state it is because of the War in Iraq. I would state that it is much deeper than this one issue. (Talk about one issue voting) It is the lack of morality in our country, the lack of leadership. Mr. Obama continues this by showing he is not strong enough lead and make a moral decision based upon science. It is a slap in the face of all scientist and enlightenment that this man can not even make a decision based upon science.

  • Teri

    What Obama really said is that he’s not paid enough to defend human life.
    Interesting.

  • Teri

    But Obama is paid enough to “steal, kill, and destroy” (a quote from Jesus of Nazareth about the sole occupation of the enemy) the poorest among us.

    Doesn’t sound very democratic to me.

  • Teri

    Once Obama becomes president, what other inalienable rights will Obama refuse to defend because of “pay grade” insufficiency?

  • Teri

    With Obama’s thinking being so bought and paid for, the awarded presidency would be OVER-payment for services rendered at the expense of the poorest and the weakest.

  • CTren1564

    A recent thread posed the question does Obama support Infanticide which related to Obama’s rejection of the “ILL born alive infants protection act” and a similar bill in the U.S. Senate. Pro-Lifers have been making this known on the blogs and Obama called the Pro-Life movement “liars”. Well, now the “American Papist” is running a story that in fact, Obama did support infanticide and the “2 Bills” which he states were different were actually the same. In other words, not only did he support infanticide, he is a liar. Here is the link to the American Papist cite, which also cited Deal Hudson’s recent work on bringing this issue to the forefront.

    http://www.americanpapist.com/blog.html

  • Teri

    This whole “It’s not my pay grade to defend a baby’s life” quote is so cold-blooded, mean and opportunististic, it makes even the most ferociously menopausal woman’s blood to run cold.

  • Teri

    Someone ought to write a novel about a pro-abortion black man’s presidential campaign and entitle it, “Satanic Halleuias… and Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler Could Be Heard from Their Own Corner of Hell Singing Their Own Chorus.”

  • Ben

    Yes, clearly, setting the time of any child’s creation is beyond the authority of a Senator, a presidential candidate, or even POTUS.

    However, determining that a child exists is not. I can’t create a tree, but I can tell you that one is in front of your bike.

  • Klaire

    Father Tad of NCB, IMO, says it best. Google “father Tad AND ensoulment” for a fascinating read and embryo video.

    The same argument of couse applies to ESC research. Here is an excerpt.

    It would be more immoral to destroy an embryo that had not yet received an immortal soul than to destroy an ensouled embryo. Why? Because the immortal soul is the principle by which that person could come to an eternal destiny with God in heaven, so the one who destroyed the embryo, in this scenario, would preclude that young human from ever receiving an immortal soul (or becoming a person) and making his or her way to God. This would be the gravest of evils, as the stem cell researcher would forcibly derail the entire eternal design of God over that unique and unrepeatable person, via an action that would be, in some sense, worse than murder. The human person, then, even in his or her most incipient form as an embryonic human being, must always be safeguarded in an absolute and unconditional way, and speculation about the timing of personhood cannot alter this fundamental truth.

    Furthermore, I recently heard Father Frank Pavone say the real quesiton isn’t when life begins, but who has the right to the life. God or the mother?

    Klaire

  • Klaire

    Here’s the exact name of the article, sorry!

    Do Embryos Have Souls?
    FATHER TADEUSZ PACHOLCZYK, PH.D.

    Klaire

  • Anonymous

    At the end of 2012, who do you think would result in the reduction of abortion in United States? I think it’s Obama. The law is the symptom of the abortion problem, not its solution. Has the drug war succeeded in reducing the flow of illegal drugs? Did Prohibition end alcohol consumption? Education and regulation, not prohibition -is what works. Can you deal with personal responsibility? If not it does not matter what the law is. As long as there is money to be made, there’s always going to be a man in the back alley. To me it’s the numbers that matter, it’s what actually works, not idealism, not hype.

  • Ann

    Teri wrote: This whole “It’s not my pay grade to defend a baby’s life” quote is so cold-blooded, mean and opportunististic, it makes even the most ferociously menopausal woman’s blood to run cold.

    Senator Obama never said that. You are misquoting him.

  • Teri

    Instead of the word ‘quote’ I should have used the word “argument” and instead of putting quotes around “It’s not my pay grade to defend a baby’s life,” I should have italicized to delineate the candidate’s comments under discussion.

    At the end of the entire argument, it’s tempting to say, “Maybe all the pro choice ladies and their daughters ought to be able destroy every life they manage to copulate into existance.” The opposition destroying itself from the inside is a solution, albeit a bad one, but if its what they want under the guise of sexual freedom, it won’t be long before whether to abort is no longer an issue. That family tree will die.

    Young pro-life voters know they survived the abortion generation and are happy about this.

  • Anonymous

    To quote a well-known media personality who is pro-life: “Someone needs to ask Obama when his daughters attained their human rights.”

  • Anonymous2

    3 a.m.
    Phone rings…
    International crisis…

    President Obama…

    “That’s above my pay grade.”

    click

  • Cassie

    Senator Obama’s response to Warren’s question was rational, intelligent and presidential. No president is God. The worst one ever thought he was chosen by God. Even though God told Bush that he wanted him to be the POTUS, He must have forgotten to tell Bush to decrease the number of abortions in the U.S.

  • R.C.

    It is utterly laughable to use, as an argument for voting for Obama over McCain, the notion that Obama would contribute to a drop in abortions.

    I do not say that the people who proffer this argument aren’t serious (in terms of their mood). But I do say it is not a serious argument (in the sense of having the weight of plausibility).

    There are four things a President can do to reduce abortions:
    (1.) He can preach about it via the “bully pulpit”;
    (2.) He can propose and advocate legislation;
    (3.) He can sign legislation delivered to him by Congress;
    (4.) He can nominate federal judges and Supreme Court justices.

    That’s it.

    Now one thing that’s abundantly clear is that Obama is not going to be preaching about the immorality of abortion from the bully pulpit. Strike #1 off your list.

    And, although it’s quite clear he wants to nominate federal judges and Supreme Court justices, it’s also quite clear he wants to nominate the kind which would move the currently evenly-balanced or slightly-rightward court sharply to the left. This would have the impact of ensuring that Roe is not overturned for a minimum of another decade or so…setting aside all the other damage likely to result. So, strike #4 off your list.

    No, those who think it plausible that an Obama would cause a lower number of abortions are hanging their hopes on legislation; specifically, legislation which subsidizes child-care expenses for poor mothers (so they aren’t so afraid of child caring that they choose to abort) and adoption.

    Now, of these, McCain is a far bigger adoption advocate than Obama, so, while an Obama presidency might result in increased adoptions and decreased abortions, it would do so less than a McCain presidency, where the same reduction mechanism is pursued more aggressively.

    That leaves child subsidies. McCain’s in favor of greatly increasing the per-child tax credit, so that’s probably a wash, too, unless Obama is proposing undoing the welfare reform of the 1990′s and going back to the Johnson-era style of dole (more for single moms) which did so much to incentivize single parenthood in black communities during the 1970′s.

    Eliminating legislative changes leaves us with…nothing, except Obama’s winning smile and personality, and the shimmering fairy-dust which appears to waft in his wake.

    Far be it from me to say that, if Obama gets elected, abortions won’t go down.

    But if they do,
    (1.) There will be no reason to think it was because of anything Obama did; and,
    (2.) There will be every reason to think that, had McCain been elected, they would have gone down more.

    They are, after all, legislatively equivalent…but McCain beats Obama as an abortion opponent in every other way (the bully pulpit and judges).

    It is true that McCain does not beat Obama when it comes to winning smiles, personality, and shimmering fairy-dust.

    But the reliance of Obama supporters on those mechanisms to reduce abortion and otherwise magically solve the ills of society, is precisely the reason I call their notions “unserious.”

  • Pansy Moss

    James wrote: e, during the Compassion Forum with Senator Clinton.

    It is not the business of presidents or governments to stipulate when life begins.

    But it is their business to represent me, and before I vote, I would like to know fully what their thoughts are on issues I am concerned with. Weaseling out of the question tells me Mr.Obama in the very least,simply doesn’t represent my beliefs on an issue important to me.

    And since he does not feel qualified to make such a decision, then he should err on the side of caution and always make pro-life choices rather than pro-choice ones. He has an opinion, he was too cowardly to voice it.

  • Deal W. Hudson

    The colloquial usage, “it’s above my pay grade,” is not used in reference to the deity, it’s used in reference to someone who has more knowledge and more responsibility. If Obama had meant to say “God,” he would have said, “I’m not God so I don’t know.” To make his remark sound like expression of piety does not ring true.

  • RK

    Why would John McCain, whose pro life bona-fides are at least questionable and unproven (if not doubtful), provide credibility for a liberal evangelical like Rick Warren? Warren supports abortion and gay marriage as well as advocates for global warming.

    These two candidates are both liars. Our only choice seems to be which liar do we believe less. Is this what they mean by the lesser of two evils? I’m glad we’re in good hands then.

  • Joseph

    RK is correct. Why should we limit to two underserving candidates? No to Obama. No to McCain. No to pro-abortion. No to adultery.

  • The Real Deal

    ….Deal Hudson, who was compelled to resign from his role with the Republican National Committee after sordid details from his personal life were brought to light four years ago, now sits on John McCain’s 80-person advisory board for Catholic issues. From that perch, he’s begun launching the “infanticide” smear against Obama in niche media outlets like his own “Inside Catholic” website and talk radio host Al Kresta’s program. (“Infanticide is becoming a touchy subject for Barack Obama,” Hudson wrote matter-of-factly on his website in early July.)….

    To bad not everyone wants to hear the truth.

  • James

    Mr. Hudson, one would have to believe Senator Obama capable of an expression of piety in order to grasp his Ultimate Pay Grade reference to God’s place above all others. Some mere humans have the ability to look into Senator Obama’s soul, and due to their partisanship, see no good, and certainly, no piety. How sad that Senator Obama is begrudged his respect for God’s infinite wisdom and knowledge.

  • jp2feminist

    Obama couldn’t bring himself to pick a time when a baby is entitled to human rights (conception? viability? birth? toddler?) but did anyone notice that he had no trouble defining rich? I believe he said that anything over $250,000 annually is rich, $150,000 is middle class, and $50,000 is poverty. McCain, on the other hand, had difficulty defining “rich” in terms of numbers but did not hesitate to say that human rights begin at conception. It was a very interesting look into the minds of these two men. Thank you, Pastor Warren, for an enlightening event!

  • R.C.

    RK:

    You say,

    Why would John McCain, whose pro life bona-fides are at least questionable and unproven (if not doubtful)…

    Since when? Is any other candidate this year more solid on pro-life? I’m unaware of one (one who’s still in the race, that is).

    provide credibility for a liberal evangelical like Rick Warren?

    What makes Rick Warren a “liberal” evangelical, precisely? I don’t know much about the fellow, so I ask for information. However, I’m startled to hear you say that McCain is “providing credibility”; this would indicate that McCain was a known pro-life champion whose reputation could “rub off” on Warren. But that would contradict your earlier questioning of McCain’s pro-life bona fides.

    Warren supports abortion and gay marriage as well as advocates for global warming.

    How odd, that you say that. On a quick Google search, here are some of Warren’s own words re: the environment:
    [quote]…some people really care about the environment

  • cc

    While I am occasionally dismayed by some of McCains past actions, and even some of his current ideas, he is much better than Obama. Saying we should not vote for the lesser of two evils is all well and good, but not when one of the two evils SO much worse. By doing nothing this election (and I’m sorry – voting for a 3rd party candidate is the same as doing nothing), we run the risk of handing the nation, and its unborn, over to Obama and the Democratic Party. It is not supporting adultery to vote for McCain. It is supporting a man, who is, like all of us, fallen, and who is the only one who has a shot at protecting America’s most vulnerable citizens. Please do not ignore the unborn by ignoring this election. Do not vote “present” as Obama has done so many times when asked to decide on matters regarding abortion.

  • Pansy Moss

    James wrote: Mr. Hudson, one would have to believe Senator Obama capable of an expression of piety in order to grasp his Ultimate Pay Grade reference to God’s place above all others. Some mere humans have the ability to look into Senator Obama’s soul, and due to their partisanship, see no good, and certainly, no piety. How sad that Senator Obama is begrudged his respect for God’s infinite wisdom and knowledge.

    James, that might be a fine and good explanation for polite conversation at a cocktail party, but this is an issue I care about. What does that answer say about how he is going to represent me on this issue?

  • Deal W. Hudson

    Obama has piety, no doubt, but his comment wasn’t about Divine omniscience, it was about avoiding a question that would have angered both his own base and the GOP base. What was most surprising, as I said, was his unwillingness to give his real opinion. I am sure Obama has thought about this long and hard — all his votes on BAIPA and his various speeches to NARAL and Planned Parenthood were surely not carried out in a state of agnosticism.

  • RK

    [quote=R.C.]RK:

    You say,

    Why would John McCain, whose pro life bona-fides are at least questionable and unproven (if not doubtful)…

    Since when? Is any other candidate this year more solid on pro-life? I’m unaware of one (one who’s still in the race, that is).

    McCain’s entire senate career has been defined by flip-flopping depending on who he needs to please. He’s on record for supporting embryonic stem cell research and vacuous on gay marriage. While some Catholics like Brownback have endorsed him, Republicans for Choice have also viewed him favorably. You call that “solid on pro life”?

    provide credibility for a liberal evangelical like Rick Warren?

    What makes Rick Warren a “liberal” evangelical, precisely? I don’t know much about the fellow, so I ask for information. However, I’m startled to hear you say that McCain is “providing credibility”; this would indicate that McCain was a known pro-life champion whose reputation could “rub off” on Warren. But that would contradict your earlier questioning of McCain’s pro-life bona fides.

    Warren avoids the “sin issues” like abortion and gay marriage;he’s more of a big tent kind of guy. McCain provides credibility by sending a message to his constituents that this is the kind of Christian he can get behind (i.e. the kind that doesn’t really believe in anything)

    Warren supports abortion and gay marriage as well as advocates for global warming.

    How odd, that you say that. On a quick Google search, here are some of Warren’s own words re: the environment:
    [quote]…some people really care about the environment

  • Robert Mosby

    Not only is it a colloquial expression as Deal notes, it is most often a self-deprecating way to feign humility on a matter that one prefers to avoid. The difficulty for Obama is at least two-fold:

    1. He cannot avoid the matter and so must address its entirety;
    2. He has repeatedly addressed the matter and has ALWAYS placed himself on the side of those who choose to end life.

    This is no accident. It is not humility. It is a conscious decision to act as if his pay is precisely within the range of such decision making. And it is wrong.

  • Robert Mosby

    Deal is correct to note that this is a colloquial espression in the manner indicated. Just as importantly, however, it is most often used in a self-deprecating way to suggest humility or to avoid having to make a decision. Unfortunately for Obama, this phrase works in neither of these intended ways. This is because:

    1. He cannot avoid the issue, since no president could;
    2. He has not avoided it in the past.

    Obama is nearly unique in the world as having ALWAYS voted against life, always voted for infant death and always offering excuses for every concievable manner of killing babies. This “record of achievement” is the most visible exposition of his mmoral compass.

  • Thom

    One last question; What does it tell you if someone admits he doesn

  • Fr. Joseph

    James wrote: Mr. Hudson knows that Senator Obama was not refering to the pay grade of the POTUS. Senator Obama was refering to the Ultimate Pay Grade, the One that is infinitely higher than that of a mere president. Senator Obama gave the same answer, minus the (Ultimate) pay grade reference, during the Compassion Forum with Senator Clinton.

    It is not the business of presidents or governments to stipulate when life begins. A couple of U.S. medical associations (NOT medical dictionaries) cover the scientific side of the issue of when life begins. In a country where there is freedom of and from religion, the theological side of the issue varies from religion to religion, from individual to individual.

    When a president, or any other office holder, sticks to finite matters appropriate to his/her pay grade, s/he does not stipulate when life begins.

    Since the Fourteenth Amendment says that NO PERSON is to be deprived of life without due process of law–i.e., being duly found guilty of a crime–every President’s oath of office REQUIRES him to take a position on when a human being has the right to life.

    If your position were something other than sophistry, it would be impossible for any federal officer to take an oath to defend the Constitution–because the Constitution would be empty of meaning.

    Your argument is nothing but an empty attempt to defend the killing of babies. There IS no valid argument in favor of killing babies.

  • Fr. Joseph

    Lupana wrote: He obviously meant that deciding when life begins is a matter for God and not him to determine.

    Stuff and nonsense. Anyone who knows what chromosomes are, and what fertilization is, knows that the life of a new individual, in ANY sexually-reproducing species, begins at fertilization.

    Anyone who does not know this is too ignorant to be trusted with any political power.

  • Fr. Joseph

    Cassie wrote: Senator Obama’s response to Warren’s question was rational, intelligent and presidential. No president is God. The worst one ever thought he was chosen by God. Even though God told Bush that he wanted him to be the POTUS, He must have forgotten to tell Bush to decrease the number of abortions in the U.S.

    You fell for one of Obama’s lies. Abortions have DECREASED during the Bush administration.

    Obama lied about that. It’s that simple. You can look it up.

    Of course, it should surprise no one that a man who, three times, killed a bill to protect born babies from being murdered, would tell a lie.

  • Fr. Joseph

    James wrote: Mr. Hudson knows that Senator Obama was not refering to the pay grade of the POTUS. Senator Obama was refering to the Ultimate Pay Grade, the One that is infinitely higher than that of a mere president. Senator Obama gave the same answer, minus the (Ultimate) pay grade reference, during the Compassion Forum with Senator Clinton.

    It is not the business of presidents or governments to stipulate when life begins. A couple of U.S. medical associations (NOT medical dictionaries) cover the scientific side of the issue of when life begins. In a country where there is freedom of and from religion, the theological side of the issue varies from religion to religion, from individual to individual.

    When a president, or any other office holder, sticks to finite matters appropriate to his/her pay grade, s/he does not stipulate when life begins.

    I know when a new life begins, and I know that every living human being is a person with the right not to be murdered.

    I refuse to vote for anyone who isn’t at least as smart as I am.

    If Obama doesn’t know the relevant biological facts, and the relevant moral arguments, that establish that abortion is murder, and infanticide is murder, then he is incredibly ignorant and obtuse. That means he doesn’t deserve my vote.

  • Joseph

    Sorry cc, I do not believe in the lesser evil concept. I believe in voting using my conscience. Both are evil. Both have not repented. Obama does not want to repudiate his pro-abortion stance. McCain does not want to repudiate his adulterous marriage by leaving his current partner. Neither of them can be trusted to run the country. One who is open to killing babies can’t be trusted. One who can’t be faithful to his wife and has stayed in an adulterous relationship for so long can’t be trusted either.

    No to both of them. None deserve the Catholic vote.

  • Fr. Joseph

    tinyurl.com/6yt7kn

  • Fr. Joseph

    James wrote: Mr. Hudson knows that Senator Obama was not refering to the pay grade of the POTUS. Senator Obama was refering to the Ultimate Pay Grade, the One that is infinitely higher than that of a mere president. Senator Obama gave the same answer, minus the (Ultimate) pay grade reference, during the Compassion Forum with Senator Clinton.

    It is not the business of presidents or governments to stipulate when life begins. A couple of U.S. medical associations (NOT medical dictionaries) cover the scientific side of the issue of when life begins. In a country where there is freedom of and from religion, the theological side of the issue varies from religion to religion, from individual to individual.

    When a president, or any other office holder, sticks to finite matters appropriate to his/her pay grade, s/he does not stipulate when life begins.

    I agree with you, James!

    I think it’s about time we, as a culture, stop bad-mouthing people who have the humility to know that ONLY GOD knows the answer to some questions. Thank you for stating the case for pluralism, tolerance, and civility so well.

    For instance, it’s about time we recognize the humility displayed by Mr. Hitler and all those good Christians in the S.S. who run the gas ovens. NOBODY (except God) can know when Jews REALLY have human rights. Only the most arrogant, shallow people would dare to step in and IMPOSE ONE THEOLOGICAL OPINION regarding this question. In a modern, pluralistic society, we have separation of Church and State. It would be arrogant in the extreme for the Catholic Church, for instance, to insist that its own FAITH-BASED position on the question of gassing Jews should be IMPOSED on people who don’t share the Catholic belief system.

    Anyone who would arrogantly shut down the gas ovens in the name of a sectarian, theological viewpoint is breaking the social compact by which ALL religious viewpoints are welcome in our society. If you try to shut down the gas ovens, people will STILL kill Jews in back-alleys and basements, under dangerous, unsanitary conditions.

    Gassing Jews is not a decision that Mr. Hitler and his Party ever take lightly. It is demeaning and insulting to suggest that they ever gas Jews CASUALLY. Although some people think the gas ovens ought to be BOMBED, violence is NOT the answer. Trying to force a ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL Jew-gassing policy on people who do not share our faith tradition, and who never take this decision frivolously, assumes that some BUREAUCRAT IN WASHINGTON knows best when Jew-gassing is appropriate and when it isn’t. I thought Americans stood for LESS government, LESS bureaucracy, not more.

    Surely, we can find COMMON GROUND on this issue. We should stop the sectarian bickering, and work together on reducing the NEED to gas Jews. If we put Catholic Social Teaching into practice, we can accomplish a lot more toward reducing the poverty, hunger, and lack of education that LEAD to Jew-gassing. Greater access to modern methods of preventing the BIRTH of Jews would greatly reduce the NEED to gas adult Jews.

    There are good people on both sides of this issue–people of many faiths, or of no faith–but ALL points of view on Jew-gassing should be welcome in the American Tapestry. Once we start down the road of forcing our own religious tenets on those who do not share them, we put our society on the road to a Taliban-style theocracy!

    Finger-pointing, scape-goating, demonizing our opponents–these strategies have never worked, and they never will.

  • stephen

    Very good article by Chuck Baldwin, pastor and running under the Constituion Party…makes you think really who is the real pro-life candidate among all the 5 candidates.

    http://tinyurl.com/635rv6

    JOHN McCAIN PRO LIFE? WHAT A JOKE

    By Chuck Baldwin
    August 22, 2008
    NewsWithViews.com

    Once again, “pro-life” Christians are doing back flips to try and justify their compromise of the life issue by trying to convince everyone (including themselves) that John McCain is truly pro-life. However, these same people know in their hearts that John McCain shares no fidelity to the life issue in any significant or meaningful way. Like many in the Republican Party, McCain’s commitment to life is about as deep as a mud puddle.

    Dare I remind everyone that the “pro-life” GOP controlled the entire federal government from 2000 to 2006 and nothing was done to overturn Roe v. Wade or end legal abortion-on-demand? When George W. Bush took the oath of office in January of 2001, over one million innocent unborn babies were being murdered in the wombs of their mothers every year via legal abortions in this country. And when George W. Bush leaves office in January of 2009, over one million innocent unborn babies would still be murdered in the wombs of their mothers every year via legal abortions in this country. Eight years of a “pro-life” President and six years of the “pro-life” GOP in charge of the entire federal government and not one unborn baby’s life has been saved. Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, and abortion-on-demand is still legal in America.

    Had John McCain and his fellow Republicans truly wanted to end legal abortion, they could have passed Congressman Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act. Year after year, Dr. Paul introduced this bill, and year after year, it sat and collected dust in the document room on Capitol Hill.

    What would Congressman Paul’s bill do? It would do two things: 1) It would define life as beginning at conception and, thus, declare the personhood of every pre-born child. 2) Under Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. In practical terms, Dr. Paul’s bill would overturn Roe v. Wade and end legal abortion-on-demand. So, where was John McCain? Why did he not support Ron Paul’s bill and introduce a companion bill in the U.S. Senate?

    How can John McCain, and his fellow Republicans in Washington, D.C., look pro-life Christians and conservatives in the eye in 2008 and expect that we take them seriously when they say that they are “pro-life”? If the GOP had truly wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade and end legal abortion-on-demand, they could have already done it. They controlled the White House, the U.S. Senate, and the House of Representatives for six long years, for goodness sake. The reason they did not do it is because they did not want to do it. They merely want to use “pro-life” rhetoric as a campaign tool to dupe gullible Christian voters every election year. And the disgusting thing about it is–it works.

    check the link for the rest of the article…..
    http://tinyurl.com/635rv6

  • RK

    ……article by Chuck Baldwin! This captures the essence of abortion politics in Washington. Nobody really wants it gone. Pro-lifers are being duped by the GOP. Meanwhile, neocon Catholics like Donohue, Weigel and others continue to front for the party’s lies. They accuse those who recognize the folly of voting for a phony like McCain of being extremists. With friends like these……

MENU