Liveblogging Obama at Saddleback

I actually really like this format and I know several people who aren't normally engaged in politics watching this tonight.

And I'm sure I'm going to offend some evangelicals here, but oh well. Many within the evangelical community (of which I considered myself a part of until very recently) don't pay attention to politics beyond the "I'm a Republican because Jesus agrees with the Republicans" more idea. They aren't engaged in the greater community and life in general. They have become so lazy in every aspect of life, especially spiritual and political issues, that softball questions without major follow up are great! Rick Warren is a hero in the evangelical and protestant communities and I think many people will be watching because they like and trust him. He has the ability to ask questions that will keep the average evangelical engaged.

Great post Rod. Obama certainly didnt consider the answer "above his pay grade" when he voted against and argued against a ban on Live Birth abortion. I wish Warren would have asked Obama if he planned on still signing into law the "Freedom of Choice Act", as he promised to Planned Parenthood last year.

Erin, no offense taken, but to isolate evangelicals as lazy is a bit...well isolated. Id say all of us our lazy. Now I can tell you as Christian I advocate for abused children (Guardian ad Litem), my wife and I are chairs in a ministry that feeds the needy, and I work with adult addicts, all on a volunteer basis. I could say, you see Erin, all us Christians work hard for the community, but that would be wrong, based on an isolated view. I hope you understand my point.

Thanks for the post though, Erin, I think you hit the nail (halfway) on the head, and all of us need to get out of our stupor.

PS, Warren isnt a hero to all of us evangelicals, trust me.

Just wanted to add, I am a Christian, consider myself evangelical leaning toward messianic and have been very involved in the evangelical community for about fifteen years. I'm (hopefully OBVIOUSLY) generalizing and I realize that not everybody in the evangelical community fits into my ugly jaded view.

As a Democrat, I concede that McCain had hands down the more focused, inspiring, convincing answers to Warren's questions. But, Rod, your observations are pretty party line. There are actually a few people who are pro-abortion. A Unitarian Universalist minister who goes around the country talking about how her first abortion was merely a right of passage but her second abortion was a celebration of her right to choose comes to mind. (I would put her in the "evil" category.) But despite what you think, Democrats in general and Obama in particular are not radically pro-abortion. They by and large just don't believe a judge should make the decision.

As a gay Democrat who is rooting for Obama tonight was a horrible night.

1. I don't think, when asked about the evils that plague us, Obama said nothing directly concerning terrorism. McCain did and even if it was the only evil McCain could point to it is a big one (cost us thousands of lives at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, a field in PA, Bali, and Madrid not to mention bombings in Israel and Pakistan). Obama ceded too much here, particularly since he is the one who actually vows to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell (well, at least Pakistan where McCain oddly enough would not go).

2. As far as the abortion issue is concerned I have to agree with Rod Dreher. He was far too dismissive towards the pro-life advocates' point of view, particularly for one who is trying to bridge this divide. To be fair I think he was trying to say there was some debate concerning the point at which the unborn are entitled to life but it came out really poorly, as if he didn't give the question any thought. Life may begin at conception but there are some gray areas - permanent vegetative states, comas,maybe even the unborn since there are questions concerning when it acquires sentience, a characteristic that arguably may determine whether unborn has any stake in its own life. No such argument was provided.

The nuance Obama shows on any number of issues (like taxes) wasn't on display here and if you are trying to reach out to those on the other side of the aisle such nuance would have been appreciated, if only to show that he thought the issue through. Nope. Thinking about the potential human rights of the unborn is way to far above his pay grade.

McCain got off easy in part because his views align closely with that of the audience. Even so it would have been nice to see him pressed as to whether abortion is a state issue or a national issue. (If abortion is really about the taking of a human life then treating it like a state issue seems oddly close to treating slavery like a state issue).

If McCain had any problems emotionally connecting with the so-called "values voters" (as if we don't have any?) as it had been suggested in the past, he did not show it tonight. He spoke of religion personally (I'm thinking of the the dirt cross story) while Obama spoke of religion as an academic. I think this crowd is looking for someone who feels, just as much as one who thinks, like them.

3. Obviously I prefer Obama's more pro-gay answer on marriage to McCain's. At least he told the anti-gay audience that he supports civil unions and calmly told them that he didn't see our unions as a threat to your marriages, (which of course raises the question of why calling our unions marriages would be any more threatening). McCain obviously doesn't care about our family lives but that wouldn't bother the crowd he and Obama spoke to tonight anyway.

4. A complaint about Rick Warren's Forum: He gave McCain too much leeway and time on the questions - time not likewise afforded to Obama. Even-handedness should be an expectation from every would-be moderator.

Winner tonight? Sigh. McCain.

Is it common knowledge yet that Obama has misrepresented his opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection act?

While claiming he voted against the Illinois version of the bill because it lacked language that would have protected Roe v. Wade, he actually voted to add an amendment with such language to the Illinois bill just before he killed it in committee.

http://catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13543

McCain's support for same-sex civil unions is already radical, only appearing moderate when compared to the utterly crackpot idea of same-sex marriage. Sane "conservatives" aren't willing to press him on this radicalism, and aren't willing to criticize the self-destructive sex acts it embraces, which is why the crackpots are winning on this issue.

Sounds like I didn't miss much.

Ceddywere is indeed spam. But babelfish is a joke. Translation:

"Hotels of Saint Petersburg. Description of hotels. Photographs of rooms and services. Room reservations. Online consultations. Residences."

Armouring of numbers! coordinates! Help - we're being assailed by a Cartesian phalanx!

DavidTC,

Sorry, but what you're proposing is nothing other than a "word game" too. I know the pro-choice crowd likes to hide behind supposedly "neutral" and "scientific", talking about embryos and fetuses rather than babies or unborn children, but in reality, the language isn't neutral at all.

I've spent my fair share of time around pregnant women. I never hear them talk about their fetus. They talk about their baby. To try to banish that language from moral discourse is anything but neutral; it's just an attempt to keep the ball in the pro-choice playing court.

And human rights, like freedom of speech, aren't something that parents "let" their children have, either. The parent has the responsibility to prepare children for the responsible use of their rights and freedoms, but the parent doesn't grant those rights or freedoms. Similarly, a parent of the unborn has that responsibility, but the parent doesn't grant the unborn the right to life any more than our government grants you your right.

IMHO - I think the thing that gives pro-lifers a bad name with the rest of us is their seeming obsession with the fetus (broad definition accepted). I actually like the idea that all* life is sacred. Every religion has made this point not the least of which is Buddhism. I guess some of us that like that idea also want to know about the middle and end of human life and why that does not get the same treatment? One example, there is a perception that the same folks that support pro-life also support capital punishment - that looks like a huge contradiction for many of us. Here is an even more radical idea based on the notion that ALL life is sacred: Just as a human mother provides the conditions for, supports, sustains, and nourishes human life - doesn't the environment do the same? Why draw the line at the mother? Without the environment the mother would not be possible. It seems to me that by "aborting" the environment we are "aborting" all human life. If we thought of the environment as sacred maybe the violence we have done to it would be abated. I think how we draw lines between what has value and what has no value needs to go far beyond a simple yes or no and towards an open question. A yes or no lets us off the hook too easy. An open question makes `me' responsible for the struggle to keep getting it right (also known as a life long work).

* Does "all" mean literally all life or just human? If it just means human what about other life? Is other life profane? Is other life not life and therefore mere objects to be used strictly for human benefit? Why doesn't this ever come up in the discussion? It seems to me that it is relevant.

DavidTC:

Mea culpa. Latin is above my pay grade.

DavidTC,
I think you're confusing human rights with civil rights. The right to vote, free speech rights, freedom of the press, etc. are civil rights; they're not human rights. These rights are bestowed by a government and can be taken away by a government. Parents have nothing to do with it.

Human rights (right to life, for example) are inalienable and cannot be taken away. Parents can't let their childen have human rights. Children have those rights the moment they exist. I still have a right to life even if someone passes a law saying it's legal to kill me.

"Everything is above Barack Obama's pay grade."

That quote will be his campaign's epitaph. On the "diffcult decision/war" question, how is an entirely academic position in the Illinois state senate even amount to a decision? We are electing someone to make hard decisions, as Mccain has.Mccain is far from ideal. But Mccain conceded he has made mistakes. There's something about Mccain being an older guy who has lived a long life that is somewhat reassuring; he knows he doesn't know eveything, he knows he can make a mistake and he knows the world is messed up.

Obama by his own statement has no doubts.He showed up barely 5 minutes ago and acts like he knows everything. He really believes he has all the answers. And that is stupid hubris. It's' what many people have righkty taken Bush 43 to task over since 9/11, and yet many on the left don't see it.

There comes a point where Obama's vaunted judgment, his self-proclaimed reason for electing him,doesn't sound like much of a good reason to vote for him at all; quite the contrary. The President doesn't get to vote "present",nor pass it up to the next pay grade. And if he has some doubts about a bad decision, we all hope he would change his course. There doesn't seem to be anything like self-doubt or introspection in Obama's mindset. Simply this man shouldn't be running anything, much less the executive branch.

As I recall the question was, "When does life begin?" I suppose the possible range of acceptable answers would be at conception, at birth, somewhere in between or I don't know. I think Obama's answer was a variation of I don't know, along the lines of - I am not qualified to answer that. I took the actual statement, “above my pay grade” to mean he does not know because he is not God. However, for those of you that deem abortion as murder I could see how you would take any levity as at best, in poor taste and at worst, taking murder lightly. You folks are not going to vote for Obama anyway so I do not think any answer he could give would be acceptable for you. I think “I do not know when `life’ begins” is perfectly acceptable. It is not an “academic” answer. A president will never be asked to vote on when life begins. If it could be answered in an objective, non-religious way it probably would be a very academic answer and as such, not really sufficient for most folks. I did not see any kind of insult in his response but I am not highly, emotionally invested in the answer. Personally, I think taking this beyond what was actually said may let you vent some anger or frustration but when you start to demonize those that disagree with you, you will start to ruin your credibility. Try to think about how you look at those folks you see on TV who call America the “great Satan”. Do you think, “umm, they may have a point” or do you think “those people are out of control”? So, I think you would do your cause a favor by sticking to the facts and coming across as making reasonable and rational arguments – otherwise, you are really only preaching to the choir.

"At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?"

To me, that asks the question, "When is a fetus considered human and as such get human rights?". What I hear in that question is, "When does [human] life begin?" For those that are pro-choice a baby and a fetus are different. "Baby" necessarily means "human" since a baby exclusively belongs to the category "human". There are no "babies" that are not "human". If the question is, "Do "babies have human rights?" - The answer is of course they do because they necessarily belong to the category "human". If this is the question, it turns out to be a very uninteresting question since it is a necessarily true, logical syllogism:

A is B.
B is C
Therefore: A is C

OR

All babies are human
All humans have human rights
Therefore: All babies have human rights

If this is the real question it is an insult to Obama’s intelligence since denying it would mean you can not comprehend plain logic (otherwise known as stupid).

Here is the insidious part – you folks are really using code to plainly state (to the initiated) – you are a demon, you are evil because you kill babies and deny them human rights. Those that are pro-choice do not think they are killing babies but your code insists that they are and denies them a response that is something other than believing pro-life OR killing babies. In effect, if you are not pro-life you are a demon. This forum was “suppose” to have the appearance of objectivity and fairness but as evidenced in this description it was a setup – just another opportunity to preach to the choir at the expense of someone with another legitimate point of view. IMO, Republicans have been very successful employing this type of technique. It usually just takes a little thought to show the clay feet on your evil demons.

'"Above my pay grade" is a smart alec expression. Like what a full of himself kid coming home from college freshman year might use at the dinner table. Whatever his position on the issue, he gave a rude, snotty answer to the question in those few words. "Beyond my expertise (as neither a philosopher nor a theologian)" might have been dodging the question but it wouldn't have sounded flipppant.

Here is the insidious part – you folks are really using code to plainly state (to the initiated) – you are a demon, you are evil because you kill babies and deny them human rights. Those that are pro-choice do not think they are killing babies but your code insists that they are and denies them a response that is something other than believing pro-life OR killing babies. In effect, if you are not pro-life you are a demon.

Actually the real insidious part is that being in favor of abortion works to the benefit of the pro-life crowd, because it will allow and result in the aborting of children by parents who typically vote or are Democratic and/or pro-choice, which means that in the long run the pro-lifers will outnumber the pro-choicers, and then... ;-)

Pro-lifers are just biding their time.

Mark D wrote the following:

"To me, that asks the question, "When is a fetus considered human and as such get human rights?". What I hear in that question is, "When does [human] life begin?" For those that are pro-choice a baby and a fetus are different. "Baby" necessarily means "human" since a baby exclusively belongs to the category "human". There are no "babies" that are not "human". If the question is, "Do "babies have human rights?" - The answer is of course they do because they necessarily belong to the category "human"."

Mark, there are human fetuses and animal fetuses, human babies and animal babies. The question "When does a human fetus become human?" is illogical. A human fetus is human, by definition. If all humans have the right to life, then a human fetus by definition has this right.

In the pro-choice viewpoint, the right to life is simply not something that belongs intrinsically to all humans; it is an arbitrary quality which can be removed from any category of humans we wish. The unborn human, the nearly-born human, the partially-born human, and even, in Obama's view, some of the born humans (who survived an abortion) can be killed with no due process and for no reason other than that their mothers do not want them to continue to live.

And the reason Obama dodged the question is because he doesn't really want evangelicals to focus on the fact that he would protect no unborn human's right to live and would deny the right to life for some born humans as well. He is not pro-choice; he is radically pro-abortion, the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for the presidency. The less attention is paid to that fact from those of his potential supporters who disagree with his radically pro-abortion and pro-infanticide views, the better, as far as he is concerned.

In the pro-choice viewpoint, the right to life is simply not something that belongs intrinsically to all humans; it is an arbitrary quality which can be removed from any category of humans we wish.

Utterly absurd. Pro-choice people weigh the rights of the woman to make decisions about her body and health with the "rights" of the unborn. In weighing the balance, pro-choice people find that the rights of autonomous, living women come before the consideration of "rights" of an unborn fetus or baby that is entirely dependent on the lifeblood and body of the woman whose rights are at risk.

"A human fetus is human, by definition. If all humans have the right to life, then a human fetus by definition has this right."

therefore:

"A human is human, by definition. If all humans have the right to life, then a human by definition has this right."

suggested nouns: armchair, car, tooth, etc.

Sometimes a simple substitution can help you determine the truth of your logical syllogisms.

Daniel, do you or do you not think that unborn humans are human?

Do you or do you not think that the right to life is something that belongs intrinsically to all humans?

If you say that you believe unborn humans are not human, you are making a religious/philosophical statement, not a scientific one.

If you say that though the unborn humans are human, they are not entitled to the right to life, then you are saying that not all humans deserve the right to live. You are, in fact, making the right to life an arbitrary quality which can be removed from any category of humans we wish to remove it from, as I said above.

As far as the mother's rights to make decisions about her body, why should her rights give her the right to kill the separate, individual human, her child, who through no fault of his or her own must temporarily reside in her womb, which is biologically constructed for that purpose? The woman's rights include the right not to engage in activities likely to lead to pregnancy, after all, while the unborn human inside her doesn't get to choose to come into being or not. So why should a mother's rights give her the absolute power of life or death over her own offspring?

"Daniel, do you or do you not think that unborn humans are human?"

They are humans because they aren't fish or baboons. They are not autonomous lives, but they are a "life." If I have to balance the interests of an entity just seconds from conception with a living, autonomous human, the human autonomous life is going to win.

In the firs trimester, the life growing inside the woman cannot exist outside the woman and is human in the sense it is not a fish or a baboon. Does it have value? Absolutely. Is it a life? Sure, althoough not autonomous or fully-formed. Again, if there is a choice between the interests of an autonomous, living woman who wants to control her health and her body, the interest is going to be in favor of the woman on policy grounds.

Erin, do you ever have a concern for the legal and human rights of women? Is there ever a point where you aren't willing to figuratively or literally place the police inside a doctors office to stop her from making a decision about her body? Is the rights of the unborn always more paramount than anyone or anything else? Why do you value the rights of the unborn over the rights of women in every insistence?

Would you be willing to put a woman in prison in order to make sure she doesn't have an abortion? If you value the unborn more than the rights of a woman, I can't see how you wouldn't be willing to imprison a woman to protect the unborn.

"I bet if Father Neuhaus had an hour to spend on TV with both McCain and Obama, we'd have a much more interesting time of it."

Only if he didn't get sidetracked to trash-talk dead feminists.

DavidTC,
I’m not “artificially dividing” civil and human rights. This is a commonly accepted delineation. Even Wikipedia says that “In common law jurisdiction, the term civil right is distinguished from ‘human rights’ or ‘natural rights’. Civil rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their boundaries, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars claim that individuals have by nature of being born.” I’m not making this up, introducing some original idea, or playing semantics.

I’m also not speaking in terms of any specifically American document. My definitions would apply to all people anywhere in the world. As I said, a civil right is a right that is bestowed by a government – the right to vote, the right to a jury trial, the right to bear arms, etc. No one is entitled to these things by virtue of being human. When a civil right is violated it is because someone is being denied a right they have been granted under law (i.e. when blacks were kept from voting in many parts of country even after they were granted suffrage was a violation of blacks’ civil rights).

A human right is one in which we all are entitled by virtue of being human. While different people have different ideas of what falls into this category (I’d include the right to life, the right to not be abused/tortured/raped/etc, and probably a few others) human rights cannot be taken away by a government or anyone else, contrary to your examples of capital punishment or the draft. In my opinion, capital punishment is a violation of one’s human right to life, but just because the government executes people it doesn’t mean the human right to life has been taken away; it means that right has been violated.

I don’t know exactly what was in the mind of the questioner, but saying “basic human rights” doesn’t just mean “the right to life.” As I said, people have varying opinions on what basic human rights include. Some go as far as to include food, housing, health care and other necessities of life under the category of human rights.

So, Erin, you aren't all that interested in the rights of women since you can't really look beyond your own experience. At least it's helpful to understand that.

And since you didn't answer the question, let's try it again. A woman wants an abortion. The only way to prevent her from having one is to imprison her. Are you prepared to imprison a woman who says she wants an abortion since you value the rights of the unborn more than the rights of the woman? If you are willing to criminalize a health decision, I want to be clear how serious you are about favoring the unborn over the woman.

Daniel,
I'm not trying to nitpick, and I'm interested in seeing Erin's answer to your question, but I think it would be more accurate to re-phrase the question this way:

"Are you prepared to imprison a woman who says she wants an abortion since you value the rights of the unborn more than the desires of the woman?"

If a law were passed that criminalized abortion, there wouldn't be a right to abortion anymore. There would be be no "right" to value less than the right to life of the unborn.

Eric K
I’m not “artificially dividing” civil and human rights. This is a commonly accepted delineation. Even Wikipedia says that “In common law jurisdiction, the term civil right is distinguished from ‘human rights’ or ‘natural rights’. Civil rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their boundaries, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars claim that individuals have by nature of being born.” I’m not making this up, introducing some original idea, or playing semantics.

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm looking at the Wikipedia page for 'Human Rights', and it doesn't say anything of the sort, and, more importantly, says right in the first paragraph 'Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law;'

Reading the whole thing, it basically claims that civil (and political) rights are a subset of human rights, with the other half being those 'economic, social and cultural rights' like food and clothing you were talking about.

Which, oddly enough, despite being a Progressive, I don't consider those latter things to be a 'right'. If you want to argue they are, I'll go along with it, but that only makes the situation worse, as now we've only got more stuff in the category he used instead of actually referring to the specific right he meant.

I don’t know exactly what was in the mind of the questioner, but saying “basic human rights” doesn’t just mean “the right to life.” As I said, people have varying opinions on what basic human rights include. Some go as far as to include food, housing, health care and other necessities of life under the category of human rights.

Man, I love the idea that he was asking 'At which point do people get the right to health care?'. I think I'll ask that question myself.

Somehow I don't think that's what he meant.

And I'm not sure that pointing out that he could have been talking about any right, such as the right to be clothed, makes sense as a counterpoint to my claim he was being deliberately manipulative in his question and thus, tada, very unclear, as 'human rights' includes things that children do not have. I believe, in fact, it's actually agreeing with what I said.

There is only one 'human right' that the unborn could possibly have, or, at least, only one anyone's talking about. The fact that you've actually come up with some other, like the right to health care, that could apply to the unborn, makes my point about his lack of clarity for me!

If Obama had been an ass, he could have started talking about when the unborn get the right to health care. That would have been rather funny.

No, his two choices were to spend five minutes questioning the questioner what he meant by 'babies' and which 'human rights' he was talking about, or just recognize the question as too vague and misleading and move on.

"the unborn human is a "person" in terms of health insurance, inheritance rights, and even laws like the "Unborn Victims of Violence" laws"

In what state can a seconds-alive fetal tissue inherit property? In what cases--and at what point in the pregnancy--does the unborn become a separate legal entity for purposes of obtaining health insurance? Even unborn victims of violence laws are not triggered at the moment of conception.

There is no doubt that the unborn becomes a person at some point nearing viability. But at one second after conception? One hour after conception? One week after conception? ReallY??? Even the Vatican can't agree on when ensoulment takes place, so is the unborn really a person if ensoulment hasn't taken place?

Erin’s Comments:

“He is not pro-choice; he is radically pro-abortion, the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for the presidency. The less attention is paid to that fact from those of his potential supporters who disagree with his radically pro-abortion and pro-infanticide views, the better, as far as he is concerned.”

“But Obama's radical, extremist support for abortion means a step backward…”

Obama’s Comments:

"AND SO FOR ME, THE GOAL RIGHT NOW SHOULD BE -- AND THIS IS WHERE I THINK WE CAN FIND COMMON GROUND AND BY THE WAY I HAVE NOW INSERTED THIS INTO THE DEMOCRAT PARTY PLATFORM IS HOW DO WE REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS BECAUSE THE FACT IS THAT ALTHOUGH WE'VE HAD A PRESIDENT WHO IS OPPOSED TO ABORTIONS OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS, ABORTIONS HAVE NOT GONE DOWN."

"I AM IN FAVOR, FOR EXAMPLE, OF LIMITS ON LATE TERM ABORTIONS IF THERE IS AN EXCEPTION FOR THE MOTHER'S HEALTH. NOW FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THOSE WHO, YOU KNOW, ARE PRO LIFE, I THINK THEY WOULD CONSIDER THAT INADEQUATE. AND I RESPECT THEIR VIEWS. I MEAN ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE ALWAYS SAID IS THAT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION, THEN -- AND YOU ARE CONSISTENT IN THAT BELIEF, THEN I CAN'T ARGUE WITH YOU ON THAT BECAUSE THAT IS A CORE ISSUE OF FAITH FOR YOU. WHAT I CAN DO IS SAY ARE THERE WAYS THAT WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNWANTED PREGNANCIES SO THAT WE ACTUALLY ARE REDUCING THE SENSE THAT WOMEN ARE SEEKING OUT ABORTIONS, AND AS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT IS HOW DO WE PROVIDE THE RESOURCES THAT ALLOW WOMEN TO MAKE THE CHOICE TO KEEP A CHILD. YOU KNOW, HAVE WE GIVEN THEM THE HEALTH CARE THAT THEY NEED. HAVE WE GIVEN THEM THE SUPPORT SERVICES THAT THEY NEED. HAVE WE GIVEN THEM THE OPTIONS OF ADOPTION THAT ARE NECESSARY. THAT I THINK CAN MAKE A GENUINE DIFFERENCE."

Erin – Apparently, you and Obama’s statement are contradictory because you can’t at the same time be “radically pro-abortion” AND wanting to “reduce the number of abortions” at the same time. I suppose you can play God and imply that you really know what he meant in spite of what he said but IMO that path will lead to a loss of credibility on your part. Are you suggesting that you know more than he about what he thinks?

Erin’s Comments:

“I don't generally support the death penalty in most instances, and also recognize a strict and limited definition of justifiable self-defense killing and just war.”

Erin – do you “generally” support pro-life in “most instances”? If you set an absolute standard, you would legally require of all of us, that human life is sacred from conception to death and absolutely NO human being has the right to terminate human life then it seems to me that the afore-mentioned wishy-washiness is terribly inconsistent. Also, if you look at some of the radical things Jesus said like turning the other check, carrying your coat a mile for someone that is going to steal it from you, casting the first stone if you have no sin, etc. you could make the case that saving your life here will result in losing your life there and visa versa so if someone wants to kill your family and you for Allah you should let them. I am not even implying that I would go along with that but I do recognize a crazy, radical idea that I kind of admire in that (Gandhi and MLK).

Erin’s Comments:

“In other words, the human embryo will naturally become a human adult, given the proper amount of time and a few good meals. We only change that outcome by killing him/her, either as an embryo, or as a fetus, or as an infant, toddler, adolescent etc. Why should it be acceptable to kill him at one point and not another? Why is his life worthless in utero but valuable as soon as he breathes air? It's illogical to make such an arbitrary determination.”

Erin – The” outcome” can be changed in other ways besides abortion. God or nature, as some would have it, can also change the outcome without human intervention. The potential to be human and the actuality is not a necessary causality. Actual human life is contingent upon many factors not just one factor – abortion. The reason many folks had lots of kids hundreds of years ago is because at least half would die and never reach adulthood. I am not in favor of abortion. I really hate it. However, I equally hate the long term abuse or negligence that happens to kids. I absolutely hate and detest when they become victims or are ignored for years after birth (kids are absolute love magnets – generate and receive- they require agape, unconditional love from the start). What about horrible, crippling diseases where kids only live a few years in horrible pain. I do not look at abortion as the only evil that can happen to a potential kid. There are other and, I think, even worse evils that can happen. I do not like them one bit and I certainly would not want to have to make a choice about what is the worst evil but I would not deny anyone the ability to make that choice. For me, the “illogic” centers around the initial post I submitted in this thread (which no one has yet dare address). I agree that where we draw the line is important but it is one of those reality issues that can not be avoided or answered easily. IMO – If God created or conceived the world, all of us are “conceptions” of God. If God created everything then God, at a minimum, made the actuality of death a possibility. This means death for infants (which supposedly do not have the capacity for choice yet). Therefore, God is the original and greatest abortionist. Anything alive, whether potential or actual, will get aborted – it is called death. God (unlike Bush) can not avoid the responsibility for at least setting up the possibility for death and, I think, given the orthodox Christian notion of God the as omniscient and omnipotent, the actuality of death. Do I like it – NO!!! Am I pro-death – NO!!! I love life and I think the idea that ALL life is sacred is a high and worthy ideal. I do not think we should give up our ideals because reality goes against them. I am a proud idealist but I also have to continually do the life-long work of balancing that with reality. I do not like that I am forced into making decisions that I do not want to make (like funeral arrangements for my parents) but I also know that when decisions are made for me (by the government, the church, etc.) I do not like that either. I wish God were around so he/she/it could make those decisions and I could just go along for the ride but reality tells me that will not happen. It is a messy world and in my opinion religion shares a huge responsibility (not all of course) in making it messier. I am the most left of liberal (yes, the real thing – not made up for political propaganda reasons) you may ever know so living in a country that has been dominated in recent history by what I nicely call “Republicans” is a constant negative pull on me but I try to keep this in mind:

"[Matt 6:22, 23] The eye is the lamp of your body; when your eye is clear, your whole body also is full of light; but when it is bad, your body also is full of darkness.”

I think this is something you folks on the religious right should also take seriously when demonizing those of us on the left.

Mark, this thread's dying out, so I'll just say a few things:

One, on abortion, Obama's actions speak louder than his words.

Two, on the death penalty, I accept Catholic teaching.

Three, I see a big difference between natural death and murder. If God gives life He can also end it. We're not God.

And David, it seems to me that what you want would force people who hate all abortion to participate in it--how is that just?

Erin,

I guess I am not up on thread etiquette. I thought the conversation was about the subject matter chiefly between us not whom ever else may be looking in. Anyway, here is my response regardless of whether you read it:

“One, on abortion, Obama's actions speak louder than his words.”

If his actions contradict his words then I would think the burden of proof lies with the person making the accusation. It seems to me that this would be the proper direction for an argument on that point. Otherwise, you are just hurling accusations around to vent your own anger which is really about you not Obama.

“Two, on the death penalty, I accept Catholic teaching”

You accept the Catholic teaching carte blanche? I guess I find a mere appeal to authority in the face of a glaring contradiction to be woefully inadequate.

“Three, I see a big difference between natural death and murder. If
God gives life He can also end it. We're not God.”

Obviously, there is a big difference between murder and death. I think murder is criminal (which implies law) and is probably the most hideous of all crimes. However, if the point is about abortion, then you miss the argument all together (which contest exactly that point). If you are content with hurling ad hominine accusations because it makes you feel better it is really all about you isn’t it? Isn’t there something in Christianity about being an ambassador for Christ? Personally, while I may feel like hurling strong emotions towards the religious right I find it to be a concession that my argument is inferior. Hey, it might get you elected though!

But do you really believe that every civil right ever created by a government is a human right?

Except that I don't believe that civil rights are created by the government. I believe they just exist by virtue of us being sentient beings. (And they, like sentience, is a gift from God, but that's getting off topic, and I don't expect others to agree.)

Others may not agree with that, but I have the Declaration of Independence on my side. It's interesting, you could ask 100 Americans if the US had an 'official philosophy', and 95 of them would say no...but they'd be wrong.

Kingdoms often believe in 'divine right', we believe, officially, in 'divine rights', that somehow we have rights. They don't come from the government, they don't come from the people, they come from 'the creator', and just exist, period.

It’s not a human right to own a gun, but it’s a civil right in the U.S, for example.

I believe it is, indeed, a human right for people to protect themselves, and to alter or abolish an unjust government. Inability to interfere in arms ownership is just a way to prevent the government from interfering in that human right.

Same with a right to a speedy trial and due process and a trial of their peers. Human beings have the human right to only have their rights restricted when they have actually committed a crime, and those things are the best system we've come up with for separating the guilty from the innocent. The civil rights might change from place to place, some implementing the system better and some worse, but that doesn't change the fact that humans have the human right to not be falsely imprisoned.

Likewise with freedom of speech. In fact, that's the best example. There is no 'freedom of speech' as a right defined in the first amendment. There is just a requirement that this already existing freedom, this human right, cannot be restricted. And the inability to restrict it is a civil right.

Civil rights aren't about people at all. They're about the behavior of governments. They are, in a sense, human rights viewed from another direction, as negatives the government can't do, instead of positives people can do. A human right says you can do X, a civil right says the government can't stop people from doing X, or can't do Y because that would harm the right of X.

We refer to civil rights when we're explicitly talking about the government's behavior, as those are a lot more specific about what the government can and can't do, instead of total abstractions.

And when talk about 'civil rights' in the context of people, we are referring to the rights of people to require that their government not infringe on their human rights in a specific, illegal way. Which is just a somewhat indirect and roundabout way of talking about human rights.

Or, to put it another way, human rights are the concept, and civil rights are the implementation of that concept by each government.

I’ll say again I don’t know what all rights Warren includes in the category of human rights. For all I know he really just meant “right to life”. This is beside the point. The question wasn’t phrased in such a way to prohibit Obama from interpreting it to include any and all human rights he thinks humans possess. It could be as broad or as narrow as he wanted, but he chose not to give his opinion on at what point a human being is entitled to whatever he thinks “human rights” include. This is a cop-out.

The fact that the question was deliberately vague is what I was trying to point out. If Obama had spent time defining what 'human rights' are, and time making sure that, by 'baby', the questioner meant 'unborn', he's 'weaseling' out of an answer, like Clinton did when he tried to define 'is'.

If someone wants clear answers, they should ask clear questions. And not present terms that could be defined any way, and then expect Obama to define the question he's being asked, which either makes him look like a weasel or, if he chose the route of interpreting either of the poor terminology in that question other than 'unborn' and 'right to life', look like an ass. (Why, no, I don't think small children should have the right to vote. Next question?)

The question could been phrased as 'Do you think that there is an inherent right to life, and, if so, when do humans get it? When they are born, or before, and if before, when?'. I know that's what people are pretending that's what the question was, but it really wasn't.

Obama a great actor with a script and a teleprompter. He came across as weak!!

Based on what I saw I'm changing my preference from Obama to McCain...looks like he can lead where Obama need handlers to tell him what to say without stuttering.