Just watch the implosion of England, and you can see where we’ll end up… if we follow their agnostic lead.

I think we all can agree that a baby does NOT become a person unless it can survive outside the womb without medical assistance. But there are other important considerations…

So all premie births should not get medical attention? What if your wife were pregnant and didn’t go full term, but was 4 weeks early with a premie. Would you just let that premie die and not give it medical assistance? Because that is what you are saying – it is not a person until it “can survive outside the womb without medical assistance…”

HMMM…..what about underage girls…I thought they could have abortions without even consulting their parents????

Easy there tuff guy. You need to read the link before you jump into the fray.

I think we all can agree that a baby does NOT become a person unless it can survive outside the womb without medical assistance.

Oh… you’ve basically just defined some elderly humans as non-persons as well.

I think we all can agree that a baby does NOT become a person unless it can survive outside the womb without medical assistance.

Nice try, bub – your’re hoisted by your own petard: Look up the definition of “baby” and get back to us.

Additional: In many states, if a murderer kills both the mother and the unborn child, there are 2 murder counts brought against them… so the baby in the womb more than just a “mass of fetal tissue”.

BTW, is there a religion that condones lying…..?

Marxism? liberalism? Clintonism?

For far too long I have watched in horror as all of these non-persons have thrust their demands for personhood on us. No more. I have therefore created some clearly established rules for determining when a lump of cells becomes a viable human bing. I think we all can agree that a baby does NOT become a person unless it can survive outside the womb without medical assistance. But there are other important considerations…

rockmom on August 18, 2008 at 3:25 PM

This isn’t the first time Barry’s been stumped by a question he should have had a ready thoughtful answer for.

My take is simple: The guy’s so sure of his mental agileness and has been fawned over for his “brilliance” for so long that he’s never learned how to–doesn’t know how to, and hates to–study.

Simple as that.

But has no one noticed that he never even tried to answer the question? It was a legal question he was asked, referring to the legal rights and personhood. But his response began by stipulating that he was commenting on the religious and scientific aspects of when life begins. When life begins is an entirely different question; there is no doubt that the newly-implanted zygote is alive, the question is: ‘Is it a person with legal rights?’

Oddly, the determination of personhood and is the very question that as a Constitutional law professor he should have been able to answer better than anyone else. What is more, this determination and all the twists and turns of the surrounding issues are questions that he has considered at length and has employed when voting or not voting for abortion and infanticide bills.

And every lawyer knows that at some point a fetus becomes a person apart from any religious or scientific sentiment.

It is within his pay grade. And he knows the answer. But the question he ‘humbly’ declined to answer was not the one he was asked. Lawyerly, certainly. New politics? No. It’s the old switch and shuffle done very well.

He has decades of friendships, mentoring, votes and evasions invested in that past, and his current fluidity does not reflect change, it reflects fear that if he says what he means and feels he is not going to win the big prize…and really have a chance, with his fellow travelers, to show us what Marxist socialism is all about.

Barry is a little man, he cannot process information that does not fit his playbook of the world and how it works. He is fine within the bubble of Hyde Park and similar pockets of angry socialists who feel passed over by the free market, because they have nothing to offer that market and would be lost but for inheritances and government jobs. I paint too broadly here, but Bill Ayers knows what I mean.

Very much is past Barry’s pay grade, but self-esteem won’t allow him to admit it and evolve. Scary to think everything you have lived and breathed for so long is a hoax, and he ain’t brave enough. What George McGovern wrote about the Employee Free Choice Act will never come from Barry.

What Obama is saying is that the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court decisions don’t define a pre-viable fetus as a person and, since the new Illinois statute wasn’t limited to viable fetuses, the law wouldn’t pass U.S. Constitutional muster. You could have a heart beat after six or seven weeks.

“As used in this Section, the term “born alive”, with
respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, AT ANY STAGE OF ITS DEVELOPMENT, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

/rhetorical, but I wouldn’t put it past this dunce to use it as an excuse when reminded of the 2001 quote.

Michael Dukakis gave a sound, honest, and consistent (with his record)answer to the question about his view of the death penalty if it had been his spouse who was murdered instead of a hypothetical victim. Unfortunately it made him seem extremely cold and unemotional as well.

Like a computer, a cold, pure logic machine without a soul. Maybe we should ban emotion and be more like Vulcans. I bet abortion isn’t an issue for them.

And, as he learned, it was the wrong answer.

And you’re right, Christians do not engage in the argument about where human rights (keep civil rights limited to the racebaiting blogs) begin. It’s the murdering progressives who set up that strawman and continue to argue about it, hoping to find that magical milestone between conception and birth that will convince pro-lifers of the benefits of killing babies.

rockmom on August 18, 2008 at 3:25 PM

The only problem I see with your proposed answer is that it comes off sounding lawyerly or clinical. Michael Dukakis gave a sound, honest, and consistent (with his record)answer to the question about his view of the death penalty if it had been his spouse who was murdered instead of a hypothetical victim. Unfortunately it made him seem extremely cold and unemotional as well.

Likewise, Obama would seem a bit too much like a lawyer when he starts differentiating between the moment that civil rights begin and “superior and inferior” rights of the individuals involved. The abortion question is an obvious one in front of a crowd of Christians. I can’t believe he wasn’t better prepared to answer it.

The other constitutionally consistent argument for choice is that the definition of when life begins is a religious one, and thus the government cannot impose a religious belief on the people under the First Amendment.

Unlike, of course, the religious belief that “Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor”. We’ve changed the name to “lying under oath”, or “perjury”, or “making a false statement” and on and on….. Your logic seems to suggest that lying should not be punished (nor prohibited) simply because it’s a religious tenent. BTW, is there a religion that condones lying…..?

If determining when life begins is a religious question, does that also extend to the definition of when death begins, since “living” must by default be defined in religious terms. Is the body merely a biological transport vessel for a soul (the real person)?

How does this relate to a death penalty? If the state gives itself the power to take a life, can it not give itself the power to prevent the taking of a life?

Does a fetus have a soul? Does a freshly executed mass murderer have a soul?

Maybe we should allow the debate to consider alternate definitions, such as the difference between the biological transport vehicle and the soul. Then both sides of the argument can have their cake and eat it to. All that has to be done is to find a way to kill the soul without damaging the vehicle. Choice and life.

Oh wait….we’ve already invented that procedure….it’s called socialism.

What’s wrong with a civil rights lawyer saying that he believes life begins at conception but that the life and privacy of the mother are superior rights to the rights of the unborn child – i.e. that life may begin at conception but civil rights begin at the point of natural birth? I would have had a ton more respect for Obama if he had said that.

…in his attempt to dodge the question and basically punt it to get to the answer he thought would score him more points from the audience.
rockmom on August 18, 2008 at 3:25 PM

Wow. That would have been a much better way to respond. Even if you disagree with that reply that you put together, it’s harder to counter than his ‘above my pay grade’ reply.

And Obama has a lot of experience of dodging the question, and dodging the vote. Especially when he was in the illinois senate. That is one of his qualifications that he is ‘good at.’ And now, running for president, this well honed ability of his is totally useless.

All conservatives should now get on Rush’s coat tails and ride this to victory!!!

sabbott on August 18, 2008 at 3:22 PM

Sorry but it isn’t time to start riding. The VP nomination is going to be critical and if it is somebody just like McCain, those coattails will be mighty short. Conversely, if he selects somebody that appeals to social conservatives and evangelicals he might have a chance.

The reason why this is so critical is that McCain is ancient and even if he doesn’t opt out after one term, his VP needs to be absolutely qualified to take over in an emergency. All the hype about unknown Congressmen and Governors isn’t the kind of leader that reassures one of solid uninterrupted leadership. Palin or Jindal are no better than Obama when it comes to the experience question.