September 07, 2008

Obama Still Doesn't Get it On Human Life

Well, he does get that he gave a very stupid answer on the topic at Rick Warren's event at Saddleback, but that's about it.

Now, Obama tells ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in an interview taped for “This Week”: “What I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into … It's a pretty tough question. And so, all I meant to communicate was that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.”

To try to turn it into a question of ensoulment (which is a theological question that has NO RELEVANCE to the issue as a matter of law) is to profoundly confuse the issue. The question is a legal one of when a human being gets rights, not when a human being gets a soul.

Which proves, of course, that Obama does not get the real issue (or is intentionally trying to obscure it)l. It really all comes back to when you have human life -- and scientifically that one is a no-brainer. It is conception. That is a settled question of biology. Theology does not enter into the picture.

Now, having established that you have a living human being based upon science, answering Rick Warren's question about when human rights begin should also be easy enough -- with that answer again being conception. If it isn't, you then allow for all sorts of legal and moral obscenities, with certain members of the species homo sapiens sapiens being considered somehow sub-human. Chattel slavery and the Holocaust spring to mind as the logical outcome of such exclusions, and I can't imagine there are many who wish to go down either of those roads again.

The question that Obama needs to answer -- and which really needs to be put to him in a public forum -- is whether or not he believes that some human beings are less worthy of human rights than others. And then demand that he tell us which ones.

UPDATE: Well, Biden got it half right:

In the interview Sunday, Mr. Biden tried to walk the line between the staunch abortion-rights advocates in his party and his own religious beliefs. While he said he did not often talk about his faith, he said of those who disagree with him: “They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life — I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception.”

Unfortunately, he is unwilling to accept it as a matter of science -- or the implications of his pro-abortion political philosophy as supporting the wholesale violation of human rights.

Posted by: Greg at 12:58 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 473 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Right on target with this post, thank you.

Posted by: T F Stern at Sun Sep 7 14:06:08 2008 (Ruh11)

2 "It really all comes back to when you have human life -- and scientifically that one is a no-brainer. It is conception. That is a settled question of biology. Theology does not enter into the picture." If this is a question about science and not religion, why is there such a high correlation between religiosity and being pro-life? Two thirds to three-quarters of zygotes are spontaneously aborted. Is this the largest public health issue in the world? Should all health research resources be put toward ending these billions of lives from ending? When twinning occurs, did one life just split into two? Are chimeras, formed from the cells of two zygotes, actually 2 people, or did two people become one? Is every cell in your body a person? Properly prepared, any cell can become a viable human being - just as any zygote requires proper preparation to become an infant.

Posted by: Tommy Blanchard at Wed Sep 10 07:00:44 2008 (njCo0)

3 To answer your first question, because religious folks tend to have higher moral values than non-religious folks. In particular, they place a higher value upon their fellow human beings than upon personal convenience. As for your second set of questions, your point is absurd. There are, rightly, multiple public health priorities that have a higher priority due to the likelihood of success -- and because the probability of being able to apply the results of the research in most cases is so minute as to not be feasible. And as for the rest, you've spun off in the direction of absurdity with your questions, trying to take relatively rare (or even things which can occur only in a laboratory setting) to try to argue against the scientifically indisputable point -- a human being exists from the moment that conception occurs.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Sep 10 12:21:32 2008 (w2aJt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
9kb generated in CPU 0.0037, elapsed 0.0115 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0091 seconds, 32 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]