NCAAbbs

‘Pay grade’ unartful dodge

What Obama's Abortion Record Reveals

Wow! Probably one of the most insightful observations of last Saturday's face off at Saddleback.

It is above his pay grade. It's the supreme courts duty alone to determine when an embryo, fetus, etc. becomes a person within the meaning of the constitution.

It always seemed to me that Al Gore, as a presidential candidate (and even now?), felt like he had to be the smartest guy in the room. The guy with all the answers. This to me is a tragic flaw in any leader and I'm fine with the POTUS saying that certain knowledge is beyond his ken. I'd much rather he find the smartest, most capable folks he can and ask them to help. This particular question is, scientifically and philosophically, pretty hotly debated.

Now, if he had said that a particular DECISION was above his pay grade, then I might have a problem.

Go to Youtube and watch the video of his response.

He takes at least 20 seconds to formulate his week response.

Take away his teleprompter and Obama is worse than Bush 43.

By the way, its not the Supreme Court's job to determine when a multi-cellular tissue constitutes life.

Even if it IS the Supreme Court's job to determine, that isn't above the paygrade of the President or even a Congressman. It is (according to our Constitution) Directly AT his pay grade... just in another department.

Could he mean "morally" above his pay grade, meaning God?? Okay... i guess.. but once again, that is a platitude... not a President. Determining life and death is a job for God as well, but Jurys and Governors routinely make that decision.

technically, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong... It is generally Congress' job to determine things like when life begins by passing a law. That law may or may not have been suggested by the President... but it was decided upon by Congress. It is up to the Supremes only to determine if that law violates OTHER laws (like the Constitution)... so in other words... in my opinion... the answer to that question IS DIRECTLY AT HIS CURRENT PAY GRADE... not even at the one he aspires to.

I would think he'd know that as he has voted on legislation directly on this point.

As I said... If he meant determining what constituted a human being was beyond him, then fine. I'd generally agree with that... but for the obvious purpose of the question, he should have had a better answer.

Mine?? It probably depends on who you are talking to as to what constitutes a human being. From a purely scientific standpoint, I suspect they would say it starts as soon as the cell splits... it is scientifically identifiable as a human as opposed to any other being... but from a legislative standpoint (me speaking as a Congressman) I think I'd have to have some steps, as opposed to some sort of an all or nothing decision... just like we do for other rights, like drinking driving and voting. Fetuses have SOME rights at conception... like the right to healthcare... but those rights do not include the right to life... as their birth or survivability is far from guaranteed. At some point, and I suspect that is +/- 3rd trimester or something... the survivability is so high that this would change... and thus their rights would change. I doubt that we would all be able to agree on a particular date... but I think that given the scientific and medical information we currently have, that the vast majority of this country would support a date +/- the 3rd trimester. In an effort to be as right as possible, as opposed to trying to be undeniably right on such a contentious issue, I would support legislation to that effect.

To the people who want to wait for birth, or want it at conception... I say, I understand and appreciate your position... I am not morally qualified to say that you are wrong... However... doing NOTHING is not an option, and neither of those positions will pass. It is my hope that as time passes and we learn more... that "consensus" will move towards the correct answer... whatever that is... and would insist that our legislation wasn't so rigid that new information couldn't allow us to make adjustments. In the mean time, we must be as correct as we CAN be... and right now, this is it.

It is the supreme court's job to determine when a fetus, etc. becomes a "person" within the meaning of the constitution. The question is not when "life" begins, but when that life or clump of cells becomes a "person" that is entitled to rights. We're balancing the rights of the mother who has a right to bodily autonomy and the rights of future person.

It's the courts duty to interpret the constitution. The President and Congress can't stop abortion. Only a constitutional amendment which would require endorsement by the state legislatures. The only thing the president can do is appoint judges who are against abortion. 99% of lawyers (or any lawyers that are worth a damn) aren't going to overturn abortion precedents. It is what it is.

It's a complex question for the courts to decide: When does a fetus, zygote, embryo, etc. become a distinct "person" separate from its mother? The current standard is viability. When a fetus can survive on its own then it is a "person." Medical technology not lawmakers will end abortion.

The medical community presents evidence and the courts decide. It's an important question because we don't want the government telling people what medical procedures they can have. Should the government be able to say you can't have a kidney transplant?

Your body is made of "life", living cells. Does that mean it should be illegal to get a piercing or tattoo because you are destroying cells? No, because that "life" is not a "person."

And its a bad thing that we have a candidate who actually THINKS before he speaks? Who considers different angles ahead of time? Regardless of whether you agree with his responses or not, for the life of me I cannot see how this is some sort of flaw..

Eh, he dodged the question and redirected. I don't think this issue can be contained in the question "When does a fetus begin to have life (or rights)?" It's the simplification of complex political issues into black-and-white, yes-or-no mindsets that are so frustrating. You're either for or against the Iraq war. If you're for it you're called a warmongerer; if you're against it you're called a wussy liberal. You're either for or against domestic oil drilling. If you're for it you're called a gas-guzzling Earth-destroyer; if you're against it you're called an enviro-nazi. You're either for or against abortion. If you're for it you're told you support infanticide; if you're against it you're called anti-women's rights. What happened to actually thinking about issues intelligently?

Peruna,

Good points.

The worst part is that all this posturing gets in the way of actually solving anything.

If he actually had to think to give that response then he definitely shouldn't be president.

1. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
You should think before you answer any question.

2. If that's true, I guess this guy is not fit to be president either.

Talk about easy questions.

It just showed more of Obama's weakness when he doesn't have a prepared script. He knows that he's never voted against any bill that is pro-abortion, he just didn't want to say so. Instead he comes up w/ some bs answer about it being above his pay grade. Typical Obama. All fluff and no real answers.

actually its Science, which happens to say that Life begins at conception....scientifically that is. and its the Executive branch which chooses these judges, which Obama is in favor of Scientific dunces on the court.


So what else is above the pay grade of the President of the United States? It certainly wasn't above his Pay Grade as State Senator in Illinois when he intentionally supported Infantacide of born alive babies.

When Abortion wasn't above his pay grade, granted this was born alive babies he wanted to kill.

Life Lies

Took what you were responding to out for brevity... hope it doesn't change the conversation...

I (respectfully) disagree with your initial comment. Deciding what the law is, or what constitutes something (i.e. a life) is a job for Congress. In an extreme example... They could pass a law establishing the right to vote at conception... which would only come before the Supremes if challenged... and even then, could only be up/down on Constitutionality... which isn't the same thing as agreeing with the age they established... only that they had the right to establish an age. Similarly, they recently voted that people have a right to bear arms, but not without reasonable regulation by the states... meaning states can pass laws regulating guns... even though people have a cConstitutionally guaranteed right to bear them.

I actually believe it is somewhat of a dereliction of duty by Congress to say "life" or "person" and leave such interpretation up to the court. they could just as easily say "a child at the moment of birth" or "29 weeks after conception"... in actuality, i think the framers just didn't imagine the technology

views on Life are kinda an important part of your worldview.

Science has nothing to say about when an embryo should be considered a person & afforded the full protections of the Constitution. All science can report is the status & capabilities of the embryo at the various stages of development. It is up to the government, I think I'm coming down on the side of Congress, to decide when personhood is achieved.

I'm not sure exactly when that point should be. I know it's somewhere between conception (it's ludicrious to equate a single celled organism, even though it is alive, with a fully developed human being) & birth (it's also ludicrous to suppose that passing through the birth canal is some kind of miraculous event that makes someone human), but pinning down a general time is much more difficult. As a general rule, viability seems to be ok. Of course, if I was in the position where I would be making the decision on where to draw the line, I would be much more versed in the stages of human development than I am know.

Just for the record 20-21 weeks gestation is what's considered medically viable here in the US. Naturally they'd be in the NICU for weeks while they finished maturing.

You raise some interesting points about Congress, but ultimately whatever law they pass will be overturn because it goes against the woman's constitutional right to bodily autonomy. You write a law that life begins at conception and that an embryo should be given the rights of the constitution, but the courts would overturn it. Just because congress says its so doesn't make it so. Most Americans seem to think its for congress to decide but its not. I'm 3rd year law student at a fairly conservative christian school in the south and it's pretty much universally accepted and understood that abortion law/precedent isn't going anywhere barring a constitutional amendment. I personally think Abortion is a terrible practice that should end, but I don't want the government throwing women in prison for murder for having one.

About your framers comment: In colonial times, you were allowed to abort your baby until the "quickening." That's about the time a baby can kick in the woman's belly. Scalia noted this in one of the major abortion decisions. He sided with the pro-abortion crowd because the founding fathers allowed it in their day so it must be that a pre-human wasn't a constitutionally protected person.

The rule is that if a baby can survive on its own (viability) outside the mother then it is a person within the meaning of the constitution. Until then, its no different than a parasite or cyst; it's just a part of the mother's body and she can get rid of it to benefit her health (broadly construed definition of health).

Congress has tried to ban abortion numerous times. The laws just keep getting overturned. The one that stood up was a ban against partial birth abortions because the baby is nearly completely developed and is nearly born (the procedure causes the baby's head to pass a birth geographical marker). The court held the procedure was just too close to live birth.

Do you have any handy references for this (either the Scalia decision or the colonial view)? I'm not arguing that it's not true, just curious. This is really one of those things that I didn't think the founding fathers would have delt with enough for there to be actual precedent. I guess you really do learn something new every day.

I knew I should had added "subject to the review of the Supreme Court" to my last response.

...AND you're a libertarian AND you're pro choice? I'll bet you're invited to all the parties.

Come on. Obama must have known that a pastor, a man of God, would have thrown an abortion question at him. If he or his staff couldn't have seen that coming then that shows that makes me think he only has coherent answers to questions he's been provided in advance.

Here's part of the colonial view from Roe v. Wade:

3. The common law. It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before "quickening" -- the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy -- was not an indictable offense. The absence of a common-law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins. These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became "formed" or recognizably human, or in terms of when a "person" came into being, that is, infused with a "soul" or "animated." A loose consensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth. 22 This was "mediate animation." Although Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that prior to this point the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide. Due to continued uncertainty about the precise time when animation occurred, to the lack of any empirical basis for the 40-80-day view, and perhaps to Aquinas' definition of movement as one of the two first principles of life, Bracton focused upon quickening as the critical point. The significance of quickening was echoed by later common-law scholars and found its way into the received common law in this country.

The case stated that the first complete ban on abortion was put into effect in 1860 (Connecticut) in the U.S.

James Wilson one of the framers of the constitution said that:
"In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb." This is known as quickening.

Quickening

I couldn't find the Scalia opinion right away because I forgot which case its in. It's a concurrence I remember, but they're like a hundred cases it could be in. If I find it I post it here, but I'm not going to search forever. So basically if it doesn't come up quickly I'll probably give up. You can probably find it with google though. If you do some searching for Scalia abortion opinions and colonial history/quickening. Scalia is neither pro-life nor pro-choice. He doesn't think there is a constitutional right to abortion nor does he think that life is protected from conception. He merely believes that its for the states to decide, and notes that in colonial times some abortion was legal.


Brookes Owl, I'm actually neither pro-choice or pro-life. Abortion is the hardest issue for libertarians. I don't want the government intruding into medical rights/bodily rights nor do I want a life terminated. It's one we really can't decide on because they're two differing sets of rights that conflict.

Here's the best explanation of my view that I've found.
Libertarion Perspective on Abortion

For all those that say that life begins at conception and that makes a clump of cells a human, ask yourself what you would do in this situation:

A building is on fire and you can save 1,000 fertilized embryos or 1 10-year old kid from the flames. Which would you choose?

For me it's obvious; I would save the 10 year-old kid. That tells me that I don't see embryos as the same as human life. I doubt that you see an embryo as equal to the life of a child either. If life begins at conception however then you should value both equally.

I'd probably want some standard like brain function which is very early in the development of a fetus.

Thanks for the information, no need to search any further on my behalf. I'm just always afraid if I go Gooling around on something like abortion I'll have to wade through 40,000 blog posts to find something useful.

jh,

If its not a Life at Conception, what is it? Non-Life? Logically that has to be your stance.(A is not non-A). Trying squaring that one with Science.

At conception there are:
one or more cells....
patterns of organization....
use of energy....
stable internal conditions....
grow and change....
reproduction....

and Genetically an embryo is human .

These are biological and scientific facts, Logic 101 dictates its a Human Life.

There is no magic day that is up for humans to decide at their whim to make themselves feel better about murder, using phrases like "personhood".

a 90 yr old man has the same number of Chromosomes as he had at the moment of conception. The only thing that happened to the embryo is that it grew and changed just like every other living things does.

Embryo's are not 'non-life', they are Scientifically Life from the second of conception.

abortionist and Infantaciders like Obama would be alot more respectable and logical if they'd just say: "yeah its a human life, we think the mother has a special right to kill if she chooses though". Instead of playing all these ridiculous games with language.

You're missing the point: You're equating a few cells with a full living breathing human being.

If Life is so sacred then shouldn't be allowed to eat plants or animals.

If a few cells are human, then you shouldn't be allowed to scratch your skin, brush your teeth, drink alcohol, or do anything at all! We kill thousands of "human" cells every second by simply being!

Those "cells" develop into a human. When do "you" think a fetus becomes a human? When it's birthed?

I'd probably put it at brain function. I believe that takes place about 2 weeks in; could be slightly later. Without a brain, it's just a growth in a woman's body. All this doesn't take into account problems of law about personhood. From a legal standpoint I agree with the Libertarian Party. It's a very difficult decision with reasonable basis for beliefs on both sides. The government only makes the problem worse.

You wording is interesting to me: "Those "cells" develop into a human." Implicit in the statement is that "cells" are not yet "human." If one stops the development of cells before they become a human, or even human like (think the drug Plan B), what's the problem?

The life-at-conception view, i.e. that cells are the equivalent of a human being and therefore abortion is murder, is based on an obscure bible verse which says: "I knew you in the womb." Christians take this to mean that you have a soul at birth. Notice however, that it does not say when "God" knew "you" in the womb.

Obama's Speech before the GridIron Dinner with President Bush in 2006...

Its amazing...

http://filixios.blogspot.com/2008/02/sen...peech.html


Thank you very much:

It's great to be at the Gridiron dinner. Wow, What an extravaganza! Men in tails. Women in gowns. An orchestra playing, as folks reminisce about the good old days. Kind of like dinner at the Kerrys.

Nice to see you Mr. President and Mrs. Bush. I think it takes a great spirit for the President, who we all know is an early riser, to sit here until midnight and hear himself lampooned, when he could be back at the White House enjoying a quiet, peaceful night, watching TV and approving secret wiretaps.

I don't see the Secretary of State is here tonight. You know, the President promised a muscular foreign policy. And anyone who's seen the Condi Rice workout tapes knows he means business.

The truth is, I'm terrified to be here. Not because you're such a tough audience, but because they're serving drinks, I'm standing about 30 yards from the Vice President, and…Mr. Vice President this is too easy!

Mr. Vice President, I know you came here expecting to be a target, which, it turns out, may prove easier for you than shooting at one. But I do want to thank you: for years, we Democrats have succeeded in doing little more than shooting ourselves in the foot. You've taught us a valuable lesson: aim higher.

There's probably only one person more sick of these jokes than you… and that's your wife. It's an honor to share this stage with Lynne Cheney -- a great personage in her own right. Scholar. Author. A few years ago she wrote a book called, “Telling the Truth, or as they call it in the Vice President's office, “Telling the Truth-24 hours later.

The Vice President and I do have one thing in common, we both married up. I want to acknowledge my wife, Michelle, who is here tonight.

This is a true story: a friend sent me a clip about a new study by a psychologist at the University of Scotland, who says sex before a public speaking engagement actually enhances your oratorical powers. I showed this clip to Michelle, before we arrived here tonight. She looked it over, handed it back and said, “Do the best you can!

This appearance is really the capstone of an incredible 18 months. I've been very blessed. Keynote speaker at the Democratic Convention. The cover of Newsweek. My book made the best-seller list. I just won a Grammy for reading it on tape. And I've had the chance to speak not once but twice before the Gridiron Club. Really what else is there to do? Well, I guess…. I could pass a law, or something…

About that book, some folks thought it was a little presumptuous to write an autobiography at the age of 33, but people seemed to like it. So now I'm working on volume two-the Senate Months. My Remarkable Journey from 99th in Seniority to 98th.
(With an introduction by Nelson Mandela.)

Believe me, when you're the last guy to ask questions at every committee hearing, you have plenty of time to collect your thoughts. Especially when Joe Biden's on the committee.

I'll tell you, that Grammy was a big surprise. I thought, for sure, Jack Abramoff would win for his rendition of “It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp.

As I said, it's great to be here speaking opposite Lynne Cheney. As you may know, Mrs. Cheney was a late substitution for Senator John McCain. And speaking of Senator McCain.

This whole ethics thing has been an adventure. I was really excited when they asked me to be the lead Democratic spokesman. But I don't know. Turns out, it's a little like being given the Kryptonite concession at a Superman convention. I mean, how did I know it was a freshman hazing? It gets a little depressing. So as I sometimes do when I get a little down, I wrote a song. Maestro?

(To the tune of “If I Only Had a Brain)

I'm aspiring to greatness, but somehow I feel weightless
A freshman's sad refrain

I could be a great uniter, making ethics rules much tighter
If I only had McCain

I could bring us all together, no storm we couldn't weather,
We'd feel each other's pain

Red and blue wouldn't matter, party differences would shatter
If I only had McCain

Oh why is it so hard, for honest men of good will to agree,
If we ever found a way to strike a deal, would we survive… politically?

When a wide-eyed young idealist, confronts a seasoned realist
There's bound to be some strain

With the game barely started, I'd be feeling less downhearted
If I only had McCain

Still I hope for the better, though I may rewrite my letter
Cause I gotta have McCain

Needless to say, my Grammy was in the spoken word category!
I should say that I really do get along well with Senator McCain. But as you know, not everyone in politics does. Because of his superstar status, his virtuous image, the kind of hero worship treatment he gets from all of you, some of my colleagues call John a prima donna. Me? I call him a role model. (Think of it as affirmative action. Why should the white guys be the only ones who are overhyped?)

By the way, before I forget, raise your hand if Karl Rove didn't tell you about Valerie Plame?

You know, The Gridiron Club is an aging institution with a long, proud history, known today primarily for providing a forum for jokes. To some, that may sound like the Democratic Party.

You hear this constant refrain from our critics that Democrats don't stand for anything. That's really unfair. We DO stand for anything.
Some folks say the answer for the Democratic Party is to stop being so calculating, and start standing up for principle. In fact, Harry Reid's appointed a task force to study this option.

But really, they say our party doesn't have ideas? We have ideas.
Take John Edwards. He's leading a new war on poverty… from his Chapel Hill estate. And he's educating us. I had no idea there was so much poverty in New Hampshire!

Speaking of New Hampshire, a lot of speculation that that 2008 campaign could come down to Senator McCain and Hillary Clinton. The thing I don't think people realize is how much John and Hillary have in common: They're both very smart. Both very hardworking. And they're both hated by the Republicans!

A lot of folks want to be President, but, I mean, wow, it really has been a rough period for you, Mr. President. I missed the Oscars, so when I picked up the paper the next morning and saw “Crash‿ in the headlines, I just assumed it was another Bush poll story.

And how about that ports deal? I feel for you, sir. It's tough getting trapped in a storm, when no one comes up to help!

And then there's the flap about global warming. You know, the Bush Administration's been a little skeptical about the whole concept of global warming. It's actually not the warming part they question. It's the globe.

The President was so excited about Tom Friedman's book, The World is Flat. As soon as he saw the title, he said, “You see, I was right!
But when people say the administration is hostile to science, that's really a bad rap. Just last week they asked for a hundred million dollars for the NIH to fund new research into leech therapy.

I was told that this dinner is off-the record… no taping or recording of this event, unless, of course, secretly authorized by the President.

I completely trust the President with that authority, by the way. But just out of an abundance of caution, and not implying anything, I've asked my staff to conduct all phone conversations in the Kenyan dialect of Luo.

Truth is, this domestic spying has all kinds of useful applications for Homeland Security. And I have a suggestion, in this regard, Mr. President: You can spy on the Weatherchannel, and find out when big storms are coming.

You all watch the winter Olympics? Mrs. Bush was there, representing our country, and that was great. I'm sure a lot of us in politics were following that figure skating, because we can identify with performers who spin wildly and sometimes fall on their butts.

And the curling. Wasn't that something? I hear Andy Stern from the SEIU loved the curling so much he's trying to organize the sweepers.
I also enjoyed that biathlon, where they ski and shoot at the same time. Probably not your sport, Mr. Vice President.

Hey, it's been great fun to be a part of this tonight. But before I go, I want to say a few words about the work you do.

For a democracy to succeed and flourish, people must have full and free access to information about what's going on in their world and, yes, in their government.

The framers of the Constitution understood that, which is why the very first amendment deals with the indispensable freedoms of speech and press. Those rights, those freedoms, the access to information citizens absolutely require in a democratic society are no less important today.

Pursuing that information is not always easy. Sometimes you meet resistance from powerful institutions that would sooner operate in secrecy. And sometimes, as in Iraq, you literally risk your lives to keep the American people informed.

Tonight, even as we laugh together, I want to thank you for that important and often courageous work and extend my prayers to those journalists and their families who have made and continue to make great sacrifices to fulfill this essential mission.

And most of all, I want to thank you for all the generous advance coverage you've given me in anticipation of a successful career. When I actually do something, we'll let you know.

Thanks for having me!

I'm not willing to accept the "life begins at conception" argument, even though it goes against my religious teachings. However, Life begins a HELLUVA lot earlier than birth. When there's a heartbeat and brain function, it's a person.

That's what the courts, even Roe v. Wade's, think. They're just not sure where to draw the line.

Jane Roe has since reversed her opinion. Life starts somewhere, not just when you see a damn head. Roe V Wade should be overturned and replaced with something with some damn common sense.