Last night I watched the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency. Here's a link to a summary on the event found at Marketwatch. I found the two interviews of Obama and McCain (one hour each) very helpful. Since they were both asked the same questions, the format allowed for easy comparison.
Abortion is a defining issue. So I was very interested in the answers of the two candidates to this question: "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Here is Obama's response: "Whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective, or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade." He added, "I am pro-choice, not because I'm pro-abortion, but because I don't think women make these decisions casually."
My take on Obama's position is that he doesn't feel qualified as a scientist or theologian to articulate an opinion about when a baby gets human rights. His response is essentially an "I don't know." His second statement is more than a little unsettling. He seems to be saying that we should allow women the right to choose abortion because they don't make that choice lightly. Would this kind of logic serve our society well as it pertains to other activities? I am not trying to be ridiculous here, just trying to get at his logic. Would we respect the rights of one man to murder another because the murderer agonized over the decision to pull the trigger?
McCain's response to the same question was neither similarly nuanced nor hesitant. Warren: "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" McCain: "At the moment of conception." McCain added, "I have a twenty-five year pro-life record . . . and as President of the United States, I will be a pro-life President and this presidency will have pro-life policies."
I like the sound of that. His record suggests it is more than just sound.
Recent Comments