I thought he already clarified it - pro infanticide.

mouell: I thought he already clarified it - pro infanticide.

You know, God looks down on liars.

mouell: I thought he already clarified it - pro infanticide.

You must be extra bored today.

Don't you have a "OMG BARACK IS MUSLIM!" thread to post?

And, seeing the Saddleback interview and this explanation, I fail to see the issue with either response.

Well, then it's a good thing that god has personally deputized Sarah Palin to decide for everybody.

Atillathepun: mouell: I thought he already clarified it - pro infanticide.

You know, God looks down on liars.

No, it's true. Obama was on Meet the Press and said, "I am pro infanticide. I hate babies and I want scientists to come up with new and wonderful ways of killing them. Like fleas, but with more explosions. But only after they are born, and I mean BIG explosions. Sh*t."

Then he said, "Also I'm a Muslim. Oops. I mean I'm a MUSLIM."

After seeing Saddleback - he clarified his views? To quote "Ummm, ahhh, well, ya see, it is like this, as I have always said, ummmm it is above my paygrade."

What statement from Saddleback is he clarifying? That one where he said that he cannot answer when a human has rights because it's above his paygrade? I don't see a clarification to that in this article. Seems like he is sidestepping the issue altogether to me.

Cake Hunter: No, it's true. Obama was on Meet the Press and said, "I am pro infanticide. I hate babies and I want scientists to come up with new and wonderful ways of killing them. Like fleas, but with more explosions. But only after they are born, and I mean BIG explosions. Sh*t."

I saw that. He also said he likes his babies grilled rather than baked.

Oh, and how do you not understand his response in that article? Seems pretty clear to me...

co-conspirator: Well, then it's a good thing that god has personally deputized Sarah Palin to decide deicide for everybody.

FTFY

patrick767: Oh, and how do you not understand his response in that article? Seems pretty clear to me...

"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."This kind of "theological question" was a human rights question. Tell me when he believes a human has rights. Before birth, or after birth, when they lie there to die?

In the ABC interview, Obama goes on to give the answer he wishes he'd given: "What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, that it's one that families struggle with all the time. And that in wrestling with those issues, I don't think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions.

"I think the better answer - and this was reflected in the Democratic platform - is to figure out, how do we make sure the young mothers, or women who have a pregnancy that's unexpected or difficult, have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices, including adoption and keeping the child.Thanks for taking us back through the Democratic platform again, because we didn't know that your party has been pro-choice for as long as anyone can remember.

Again, exactly what position is he clarifying here? His stance on when rights are inferred to a human? No. His stance on abortion? Pretty sure anyone with half a brain knew his position on abortion.

he's saying that the government cannot legislate when a soul enters into a human - is it at conception? is it at birth when its physically separated from the mother? these are divisive questions, and are usually answered on a science/faith basis. since government is supposed to be secular, it's not for the president of the united states to declare definitively the point when a soul enters a embryo/fetus/baby - if it was, then we would be what is called a THEOCRACY.

for examples of these, start with saudi arabia and iran.

obama is saying he is not god, and cannot legislate as such.

The_Six_Fingered_Man:

Again, exactly what position is he clarifying here? His stance on when rights are inferred to a human? No. His stance on abortion? Pretty sure anyone with half a brain knew his position on abortion.

Plenty of people with half a brain have a firm position on abortion. It takes someone truly compassionate and intelligent to get the fact that this is a very complex issue with many, many different people, faiths and ideas to consider.

Atillathepun: mouell: I thought he already clarified it - pro infanticide.

You know, God looks down on liars.

I thought God was ok with people lying on his behalf... of wait, that's just the impression I got from the neocons.

bales: he's saying that the government cannot legislate when a soul enters into a human - is it at conception? is it at birth when its physically separated from the mother? these are divisive questions, and are usually answered on a science/faith basis. since government is supposed to be secular, it's not for the president of the united states to declare definitively the point when a soul enters a embryo/fetus/baby - if it was, then we would be what is called a THEOCRACY.

for examples of these, start with saudi arabia and iran.

obama is saying he is not god, and cannot legislate as such.

And that's a nice change of pace from a President who thinks he and Jeebus have policy meetings.

bales: he's saying that the government cannot legislate when a soul enters into a human - is it at conception? is it at birth when its physically separated from the mother? these are divisive questions, and are usually answered on a science/faith basis. since government is supposed to be secular, it's not for the president of the united states to declare definitively the point when a soul enters a embryo/fetus/baby - if it was, then we would be what is called a THEOCRACY.

for examples of these, start with saudi arabia and iran.

obama is saying he is not god, and cannot legislate as such.

However, when discussing the issue of abortion vs. murder, do you not think that the human being aborted/murdered has any rights? That's the question at hand here, and it should be legislated, otherwise this issue will be around forever and will never ever be resolved. There needs to be a line in the sand so to speak about when a human in inferred rights. The line between abortion and murder cannot be the 30 minutes it takes to actually deliver the baby (YMMV). It is either a person with rights at that point or not. This IS something that needs to be decided by the legislature and for Obama to say that he cannot possibly know when rights are inferred is really off putting to me. The issue is a hot button one and unless legislated, will run election seasons for eons to come.

I'm not sure why people are so upset about the right to choose. I mean isn't the right the choose a part of God's plan?

If not why did he make is to easy?

How is his answer changing the subject? Sounds like he clarified himself pretty well.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: However, when discussing the issue of abortion vs. murder, do you not think that the human being aborted/murdered has any rights?

The whole point is that there's no consensus about what those rights should be or the status of the fetus. And in the absence of consensus, we leave it up to individuals to decide for themselves.

Mordant: that's just the impression I got from the neocons

To be completely fair, most of the neocons, properly speaking, don't have anything to do with God. (Think Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc.)

It's the theocrats and dominionists that you're thinking of.

Neocon: we must control Middle Eastern oil resources to ensure American hegemony.

Dominionist: we must abet the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple in order to bring about the end of the world.

Both of you are being deliberately obtuse as to the answer.

mouell and The_Six_Fingered_Man both want a short choppy talking point that they can use to denounce Obama and/or his platform.

The answer is actually a very respectful one and is the one I want a politician making. I don't want the government telling me (and making laws) things that are based on their own personal religious beliefs. It is not up to the government to be making decisions on when the soul enters the body and the "thing" becomes a person.

It varies between several different beliefs and it is a question that does not have a definitive answer that can be legislated effectively.

And, it is incredibly stupid to be focused on that one question while ignoring the more important point that is being made...the solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies is not answering that question.

The solution is a better education system and an improved system of options that include reforming our adoption system.

It's a great talking point to say "life begins at conception" and to pound away at that because you get to make the "abortion kills people" argument and you can feel morally righteous.

Of course, within that argument, you are saying that your opinion is more important than everybody else's opinion. And, it's such a great opinion that you feel it appropriate to legislate that opinion and force it upon the populace.

He has consistently stated that the answer to that specific question is a personal one that varies from person to person and is based upon personal faith and should be kept between a woman and her doctor/priest/reverend/whatever. He has also stated his opinion on abortion and the importance of choice. And, most importantly, he has advocated the need for improved education if we hope to solve the problem in our society.

Willingly ignoring those answers in an effort to paint him in to a corner because he didn't say "it begins at conception" or "it begins when they leave the womb" is ridiculous. The people that push the answering know it is ridiculous. But, by golly, it's something to denounce him for damnit!

It is not up to Obama (or McCain) to be making those decisions.

He has made his stance on abortion clear and he's made his st

The_Six_Fingered_Man: do you not think that the human being aborted/murdered has any rights?

There's a hidden assumption here: namely, that "being a human being", "being a person", or "having rights" is a binary, on-off thing. Indeed, a property which can be objectively determined.

This is false.

That's a shame that the rest of my post was cut off...

And now it is going to bug me because I don't remember exactly what I had there.

patrick767: I saw that. He also said he likes his babies grilled rather than baked.

If you grill them right the skin gets nice and crispy.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: "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.

"This kind of "theological question" was a human rights question. Tell me when he believes a human has rights. Before birth, or after birth, when they lie there to die?

If he answered it as a human rights question, he would alienate the 85% of the country who get their human rights from the Bible.

ninjakirby: The_Six_Fingered_Man: "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.

"This kind of "theological question" was a human rights question. Tell me when he believes a human has rights. Before birth, or after birth, when they lie there to die?

If he answered it as a human rights question, he would alienate the 85% of the country who get their human rights from the Bible.

But he would have answered the question that he feels IS within his pay grade.

ninjakirby: If he answered it as a human rights question, he would alienate the 85% of the country who get their human rights from the Bible.

Don't play by SFM's rules.

The correct answer to this question is, it doesn't matter what I believe; the law of the land (and international law to which we are a party) clearly places the human rights of the mother over any human rights (which may or may not be clearly definable) of an unborn fetus.

Obama clarifies his answer on abortion being above his paygrade by not giving an answer and changing the subjrct

Zagloba: The_Six_Fingered_Man: do you not think that the human being aborted/murdered has any rights?

There's a hidden assumption here: namely, that "being a human being", "being a person", or "having rights" is a binary, on-off thing. Indeed, a property which can be objectively determined.

This is false.

Correct.

DarkJohnson: It is apparent to me now that you must watch some really weird pr0n.

heh fundies and their obsession with abortion.

What really hurt families are divorces asshats, and plenty of you are getting them which Christ actually talked about it.

mouell: I thought he already clarified it - pro infanticide.

FETUCIDE

The_Six_Fingered_Man: when discussing the issue of abortion vs. murder, do you not think that the human being aborted/murdered has any rights?

i think different people think very differently about this. you have to acknowledge that without the mother, the embryo/fetus cannot physiologically survive. so it can be plausibly argued that it is part of the mother, hence her decision as to what to do with it.

the question of rights is dependent on the perspective of the person. therefore, to avoid violating others freedom of choice, the heavy decision is given to the mother instead of the federal government.

my honest opinion is that it should be left up to the states to decide. that way, if you feel that strongly about it, move to the bible belt. smaller, local government, that's what i'd like to see.

He also thought about considering joining the military just like Hillary Clinton. That shows he has a military background. Just too bad Selective Service registration restarted in 1980 and not in 1979. So Barack's registration was wasted.

Don't be a playah hater. Hate the game, not the playah.

I think his position is very reasonable. Subby is apparently unable to grasp questions that don't have binary answers.

God willingly gave humans free will to make their own decisions and mistakes.

Why do some insist on removing the free will he gave us with regards to abortion?

I am pro-exploding babies.

I thought he answered it very well, and I agree with others who say that for an American President to try and determine when a soul enters a body, that's tantamount to religious theory, which has no place in American politics. You know, separation of church and state, and all.

He is basically saying that he is not equipped to answer the question definitively because it is not something human beings can ever answer with certainty, and he is acknowledging that any answer he would give, would piss someone off. So instead, he's saying he wants to insure that pregnant women have all options available to them. Where's the problem with that? It's almost like some of you are looking for a fight, or at least a reason to get into a biatchfest over this.

Fundies are ruining this country.

Liberal Elite: God willingly gave humans free will to make their own decisions and mistakes.

Why do some insist on removing the free will he gave us with regards to abortion?

Don't you see? We have the free will to choose to ban abortion!

PUFTAS: I think his position is very reasonable. Subby is apparently unable to grasp questions that don't have binary answers.

meh the fundies took over the party so everyone else better tow the line like a good biatch or get called a baby killer.

bulldg4life: And, seeing the Saddleback interview and this explanation, I fail to see the issue with either response.

Obama is wrong because the Bible says so, stupid.

mouell: I thought he already clarified it - pro infanticide.

Yeah, he's going to start the Department of Abortion and sign the Federal Smash Babies With Ball Peen Hammers Acts or Cut Them Out Of The Womb With a Circular Saw Act, allocating $1B to baby killing and raising our taxes to fund it.

That certainly clears things up -- when in doubt, kill it.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: patrick767: Oh, and how do you not understand his response in that article? Seems pretty clear to me...

"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."This kind of "theological question" was a human rights question. Tell me when he believes a human has rights. Before birth, or after birth, when they lie there to die?

In the ABC interview, Obama goes on to give the answer he wishes he'd given: "What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, that it's one that families struggle with all the time. And that in wrestling with those issues, I don't think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions.

"I think the better answer - and this was reflected in the Democratic platform - is to figure out, how do we make sure the young mothers, or women who have a pregnancy that's unexpected or difficult, have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices, including adoption and keeping the child.Thanks for taking us back through the Democratic platform again, because we didn't know that your party has been pro-choice for as long as anyone can remember.

Again, exactly what position is he clarifying here? His stance on when rights are inferred to a human? No. His stance on abortion? Pretty sure anyone with half a brain knew his position on abortion.

His position he is clarifying is his original point-- it is not his job, nor the government's job, to decide when a person gains their soul, because it is an opinion that is so radically different based on religion, life situation, philosophy, etc. Otherwise stated, it is above his pay grade. Because he is not a religious leader, he is a politician.

In many religions of the world, the soul enters at first breath. A few think it enters sometime during pregnancy; and yes, a few think it enters at conception. Others don't think we HAVE a definite soul. But it is a religious question, and Obama is of the belief that the US government has no position in religious debates.

Obama's answer was not sufficiently clarified but at least he didn't automatically answer with his religion's position on it, because he understands that it is not a matter for government.

PC LOAD LETTER: Yeah, he's going to start the Department of Abortion and sign the Federal Smash Babies With Ball Peen Hammers Acts or Cut Them Out Of The Womb With a Circular Saw Act, allocating $1B to baby killing and raising our taxes to fund it.

He had me up until "raising taxes."

SkinnyHead: That certainly clears things up -- when in doubt, kill it give the person who's body contains it make the decision.

FTFY

America. Land of the fetus.

Wow. You sure got him, intrepid Right Wing smear machine.