Missing from the Times-Dispatch?
|
|
That breathtaking answer given by Sen. Obama to “at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” - “Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” (CNN transcript here). Leaving aside for now what a bad answer that was, it is interesting to NOT see it at all in the Times-Dispatch, at least not that I can find. It is in the Washington Post, at least mentioned in an opinion piece. I could be wrong - if a reader can find it online on inrich.com, let the reader please comment with that link. If it isn’t there, why? To everyone who hears it, the answer seems memorably bad. Yet somehow the paper of record in Virginia’s capitol city seems to think it doesn’t merit a mention.
More details: after the presidential candidates’ forum Aug. 16 at Saddleback Church, the Richmond Times-Dispatch picks up the report on it from wire reports and puts that here online [er, sorry, can't find the link on their site, boo!] (page A3, paper edition, article titled “Candidates answer questions on faith”). Then today there is an article by Jim Nolan titled, in the paper on page A11, “Abortion dominates talk.” A very similar article by Jim Nolan appears online. The article’s title is shown as “As conventions near, no VP picks yet” although on the Metro News entry page the article’s title is close to the dead-tree edition article.
Jame,
How about this? Pro-Life advoctes insist that “the person” begins from the point of conception.
What about the soul?
St Thomas Aquinas pointed out that identical twins do not each end up with one half of a soul. While St Thomas Aquinas’s understanding of human biology can be faulted, it sure seems like he got the general idea.
Pro-life purists (like the Pope) teach that it is wrong for a married couple to use condoms for birth control. Mind you that if a condom is used and used successfully, there is not even conception.
I object to abortion that is used as primary birth control. I strongly object to Pro-Life purists that insist any form of birth control is wrong.
While my own viewpoint on abortion lies somewhere in the middle, if I am forced to choose only one side or the other I am coming down on the side of the Pro-Choice crowd. The Pro-Life crowd refuses to compromise and continues to insist any form of birth control is wrong.
I can’t live with that. It’s not what I teach my kids. And since MOST (but not all) Pro-Life advocates do not have around a dozen kids each I do not think they are practicing what they preach either. Either they’re being hypocrites and practicing some form of birth control or they have extremely poor sex lives.
LittleDavid,
If Obama meant, “You are asking a huge life or death question, and I don’t pretend to understand all mysteries there, so I say leave it up to each person to decide” then that would have been a pretty good answer. Many people would disagree with it, but it would have been a fairly well-put reply.
My secondary issue with his answer was the phrase he used, “above my paygrade,” True, the president of the United States is nowhere near the final arbiter of moral questions. However, he must make big decisions every day, and take the heat for them. Obama seemed to be saying, “That’s a bigger question than I want to tackle, so I will punt.” As president, you don’t get to do that.
My primary point was that a lot of us found that “I’ll punt” attitude inappropriate, nearly shockingly so…. yet the Times-Dispatch ever so delicately declined to even mention the remark.
Imagine if McCain had said it… Do you think the Times-Dispatch would have left that out of its article? I doubt it…
Little David,
Though I agree with you that there are those who fit your definition of “pro life purists”, i would hardly agree that that is representitive of the bulk of the pro-life movment. And even those who do take the full catholic view on contreception are rarely advocating that with the vigor of the abortion debate. Furtheremore, overtunring roe v wade has nothing to do with the use of condoms or other contrception. If you youself object to the use of abortion as birth control, which is the primary use of obortion, then should you not side ont he side of overturning roe and letting the state legislatures decide in what cased abortion should be legal? Do you reallyt hink any state is going to pass a law banning abortion in the case of a months life bieng at risk or int he case of rae of incest? Remember, North (could be South) Dakota voted against such a measure on a ballot referendum last year. What we would likely see is the end of late term abortions in most states. The end of early term abortions in some states, with the exception of health, lefe of the month and rape incest. Is that not what you want?
sorry for my typos… that would be mother, not month
EJ,
Nope.
I am in favor of allowing abortion even in states that outlaw the use of condoms.
It is advocating against the use of condoms that motivates the need for abortion.
Do not tell me the Pro-Life movement does not have strength against the use of condoms. The Pro-Life movement has REPEATEDLY stood against the use of comdoms for both birth control and against the spread of disease.
Do not tell me you are Pro-Life and in favor of the use of condoms. Your voting record for those Pro-Life people equals being against the use of condoms (or any other birth control). They are not going to compromise and with your vote you signal affirmative.
How many kids did you have? How firmly do you stand with them?
LittleDavid -
Perhaps you need to clarify. I worry you’re mixing up the handing out of condoms freely to teenagers with their basic use. Many Pro-Lifers who support the use of birth control are opposed to its handing out to children as it promotes sexual activity among youngsters. That does not mean that there is an opposition to birth control on the whole.
OK, I’ll clarify.
The Pro-Live community has been opposed to handing out condoms amongst adults in Africa.
OK, I am going to go a little further then that last post.
The Pro-Life position is about being against any form of birth control. They’re understanding is that most forms of contraception are actually abortion at an earlier stage.
They’re against any form of birth control and that includes the use of condoms that prevent conception.
I’ll describe them as extremists, but they will proudly describe their extremism as being uncompromisable.
That is what Republicans have been voting for recently.
I’m pretty pro-life, LD, and I don’t oppose all forms of contraception. Neither do most pro-life people I know. Being pro-life is NOT about opposing condom use or other forms of contraception.
I believe innocent human life deserves protection from conception to natural death, but neither an individual sperm or egg cell constitutes human life.
Some couples may refuse to prevent conception based on their faith. I respect their choice. I also respect the choice of couples who wish to postpone or avoid conception. In fact, I would fight any effort to outlaw contraception.
Good post, BTW, Jane. It is a rather startling omission. Given the phrasing of the question — and Obama’s vote against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act when he was in the Illinois legislation — one could be forgiven for wondering if human rights ought to be taken for granted even at birth.
I believe Princeton ethicist Peter Singer is well known for postulating that parents should be allowed to terminate their defective children up until two years of age.
Just how far would Obama go?
If he’s the president, what other difficult questions would he find “above (his) paygrade”?
“above my paygrade?????????????”
Obama is a MILLIONAIRE!!!! He’s one of those “rich 1 percent” he keeps talking about.
Who’s allowed to have an opinion about abortion? Bill Gates?
I feel like making a T-Shirt saying “What if Obama’s parents weren’t pro-life?”
Brian, i know you’re not that dense, so i’ll guess you’re ignoring the obvious implication to make a point. The granting of “human rights” acknowledges humanity, and as such life. So the core of the question naturally was “at what point does life begin”. Obama’s answer was a humorous attempt at saying that such knowledge is the domain of God, not man. Whether or not you agree with such a statement, that was what he meant.
But it’s a fake answer. Those who support abortion have made the decision that the life extinguished is absent those inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
DCH,
But the Pro-Life people you have been voting for disagree with you and do not vote with you opinion.
There is only one Pro-Life position allowed. Birth control/contraception equals abortion according to them.
That is how the Pro-Life Republicans have been voting. Birth control equals abortion and they stand firmly against abortion so they stand just as firmly against birth control.
I identify the party in my previous paragraph because Pro-Life Democrats have voted to allow the passing out of condoms in third world countries while Pro-Life Republicans voted against it. Seems to me them evil Democrats voted in favor of limiting the spread of AIDS and reducing the need for abortions.