Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- In Shift, US Calls for "Amnesty" for Journalists in NK
- Obama Pushes Back Amid Criticism Over G-8 Progress on Iran
- While the President's Away, Health Care will Stray?
- 'My Cousin In Kenya Can't Get a Job Without Paying a Bribe': Obama Tells African Leaders to Get Their Houses in Order
- 'Camp Obama' for Malia and Sasha
- When In Rome...? Actually, not so much
- President Obama Shakes Hands with Qadaffi
- More Qs for O's WH - 7/9/2009
- President Obama Urges Major Economies Forum Nations to Act on Climate Change
- Today's Qs for O's WH - 7/9/2009
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama: My Answer on Abortion at Saddleback Church was Too Flip
September 07, 2008 11:33 AM
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., expressed regret at his answer on abortion at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church a couple weekends ago.
"At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Warren asked.
"I think that, whether you’re looking at it from the theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade," Obama said -- an answer that offended some people.
"Was that phrase too flip?" Stephanopoulos asked Obama today.
"Probably," Obama said. "Yes. I mean, 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 goes back to Augustine," Stephanopoulos interjected.
"It does," Obama said. "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. 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."
**
Speaking of this debate, on Meet the Press last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was asked about Obama's answer, and she ignited a firestorm of criticism among Catholic officials with her response.
"As an ardent practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time," Pelosi said. "And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition. And St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have impact on a woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child, first trimester, certain considerations second trimester, not so third trimester, there’s very clear distinct, this isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors that a woman has to make with her doctor and her God. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins."
Pelosi said the "Catholic Church, for centuries, has been discussing this."
Cardinal Francis George, the archbishop of Chicago, begged to differ.
"The Catholic Church, from its first days, condemned the aborting of unborn children as gravely sinful," George wrote in a statement. "Not only Scripture's teaching about God's protection of life in the womb (consider the prophets and the psalms and the Gospel stories about John the Baptist and Jesus himself in Mary's womb) but also the first century catechism (the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) said: 'You shall not slay the child by abortions. You shall not kill what is generated.' The teaching of the Church was clear in a Roman Empire that permitted abortion. This same teaching has been constantly reiterated in every place and time up to Vatican II, which condemned abortion as a 'heinous crime.' This is true today and will be so tomorrow. Any other comments, by politicians, professors, pundits or the occasional priest, are erroneous and cannot be proposed in good faith."
- jpt
September 7, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (100)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
So for a lot of americans abortion is a murder...Ok and sent lots of people kill others in middle east this is...murder? No! This is just war, we don't kill, they're not like us! You criticize some muslims states because they impose chariah but explain to me what do you do if you mix politics and religion? Because if you think that politic and religion are the same thing, in first you impose your religion to the entire people; second: you don't respect free will and others believes and third your a little fool to think that your are the free world example! Because a country where a woman can't decide if she's ready to be a good mom a country where the gouvernement tell us abortion is forbidden because it's a murder but actuually we are absolutily ok with death penalty or war, this is a country where we believe in justice, in freedom in right just when we want. When politics and religion are mixed this is never a good thing, look at the History! Christians in History killed most of people in the world with the name of G.od and now they dare give moral lessons to the entire world??? They killed Blacks, Amerindians, protestants, jews,muslims,women....So have some humility and think about your history before judging!
Posted by: sarah petitjean | Sep 30, 2008 7:32:13 PM
To all of you that are Pro Life for yourself and Pro Choice for the country, consider this: Obviously you feel that life begins at conception, or at the very least that all unborn babies deserve life. If you feel that life begins at conception, why would you think that it is ok to let someone else choose if they want to keep a baby? Should Andrea Yates then be released because they were her children and it was her right to make that choice? Murder is wrong. I would liken that to saying that personally you are anti murder, but you don't think the government should get to make that choice for everyone. Killing a baby because they are "inconvenient" before they are born is no different than killing a baby after they are born because you can't handle it.
Posted by: Lisa | Sep 9, 2008 4:18:06 AM
Life begins at conception period end of discussion. Right is right. I have two (twins) daughters and four beautiful grandchildren and I would not trade the six of them for anything in this world.
Posted by: Regina Douglas | Sep 9, 2008 2:36:59 AM
also, life begins at conception. the formation of a person is the process of life. if a person is born not fully developed they are still human, so why is a partially developed baby not human? if you take away they baby's life even though they may not have been born yet it is still murder.
abortion is the easy way out because you don't have to deal with your mistake. in my opinion it is cowardice and selfish.
Posted by: ... | Sep 8, 2008 11:22:05 PM
i think its funny that every one wants to keep religion out of politics when this country was built on Christianity. also, remember the pilgrims came her to escape religious persecution and to freely practice Christianity.
also, i don't think obama is being upfront. he changes his stance on any subject multiple times. he only says what he knows we want to hear. truthfully no one can really be sure what he really stands for. i don't trust his authority over our country.
Posted by: ... | Sep 8, 2008 11:16:41 PM
I know it was a long time ago, but in SCIENCE class I was taught life began when sperm fertilizes an egg. This was true for frogs, fish, elephants and even, gasp, humans. There was nothing religious. That's just when the dna was established and the cells began developing into a baby.
Are all pro choice people anti science?
Or is does science need to be changed to be politically correct?
Posted by: Dave in lv | Sep 8, 2008 10:28:11 PM
Oops I was wrong. When it comes to meeting a group of jewish leaders, it took less than 24 hours to reverse his position for a united Jerusalem.
Posted by: Dave in lv | Sep 8, 2008 10:09:27 PM
McCain changes his views every 3-12 years.
Obama changes his positions every 3-12 weeks.
Change we can believe in.
Posted by: Dave in lv | Sep 8, 2008 10:07:32 PM
Obama sees nothing wrong with aborting a three month embryo saying that to him it is not a human life. I think that an embryo that is starting to develop human traits is in fact human regardless what Obama says.
Posted by: Dr Hubert, Lt Col, USAF, Retired (2005) | Sep 8, 2008 5:05:42 PM
First of all Obama wants to reduce the number of abortions in this country. if you actually did your research you would know that. Second, his stance on abortion is that it should be up to the mother and her family what they are going to do. If the government steps in and makes abortion illegal whats to stop them from taking other rights away from us? I am a Christian and i dont agree with abortion or homosexuality but what i do agree with is that this country is supposed to be free. That means every citizen has equal rights whether they are gay, straight, man, woman, black, or white. Besides that it is not the president that makes abortion legal. It is congress so whether we have a pro-life or pro-choice president nothing is going to change. We need to focus on the important issues such as the thousands of soldiers that are over seas in Iraq dying or the thousands of homeless men, women, and children on our streets. We need to decide who is better equipped to deal with the problems that our nation is facing not rebuilding a country that doesn”t want our help. Obama wants to bring our soldiers home. MCcain wants to send more over there. Regardless of who wins the presidency abortion laws are not going to change. focus on the problems that can be fixed. We do not need four more years of Republicans. It is time for a change.
Posted by: Tom | Sep 8, 2008 1:47:28 PM
Mark wrote: "Why does Barack get a mulligan here?"
Well Mark, we gave Bush a Mulligan on WMD and Iraq, and look where it got us. And McCain, of course, thinks Bush got it absolutely right!
Posted by: Wm. J. LePetomaine | Sep 8, 2008 12:37:40 PM
Nice to see that someone can be humble enough to admit that his answer was lacking, instead of Bush/McCain types who are, of course, NEVER wrong about anything.
Posted by: Wm. J. LePetomaine | Sep 8, 2008 12:33:33 PM
Anon Said "Abortion? I might take the Right Wing a little more seriously if they were as concerned about the lives and rights of children who are already here versus those who are not."
Last I knew Rebuplicans take offense to killing children, be they born or unborn!
Posted by: William DeMarco | Sep 8, 2008 12:01:15 PM
The issue of abortion's morality has nothing to do with "ensoulment." It's just a smokescreen for the real issue, human life should be protected regardless of whether the zygote/embryo/fetus has been "ensouled." Why should it be morally acceptable to kill a human life that has no soul?
Consider the truth:
Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
Posted by: Josh | Sep 8, 2008 11:51:41 AM
Why is Barack allowed a "mulligan" here?
You can bet if Sarah Palin makes a gaffe like he did - they WILL NOT allow her a "do over".
And, in any case … he still really didn't answer the question.
It's nice that people believe that abortion is a sacrament - but I think you should at least settle the question in your mind … "when does human life begin?" before you go killing potential human beings. Biden said this week that human life begins at conception. But he supports killing that life … how nice.
Your position on abortion should be consistent - it appears that, in this election, only John McCain's and Sarah Palin's is.
Posted by: Mark | Sep 8, 2008 11:48:46 AM
Does Obama's view of CHANGE mean that he is allowed to CHANGE his words every time he says something stupid? Please continue to do the talkshows Barrack, every time you open your mouth you show the world why we need to vote for John McCain.
Posted by: Nobama | Sep 8, 2008 11:37:30 AM
I would hope that he has the presence not to be flip with his words and loose the election by flippin. He has got to recognize that over $300.million so far has been invested in him, for him to be flip about anything.He has a tendency to give the opposition weapons to use against him asd he did with Bill OReily by saying the surge worked beyond our wildest dreams. that was a foolish statement.It is now Palins mallet to smack his judgement. He is educated enough and intelligent enough to be making such flippin statements, they could well mean a complete loss of his supporters investments.
Posted by: MichaelMerriman | Sep 8, 2008 11:33:44 AM
"Do over! Do over! Barry wants a do over!
There'll be a ton of these in the coming
days."
-----
The CHANGEling's also done a do-over on rescinding the Bush tax cuts. There's no there there. History, if any, will uibble over whether Obama was an even WORSE candidate than his main enabler, Democratic saboteur John Kerry.
Posted by: Belle Starr | Sep 8, 2008 10:25:32 AM
Why the hell did the candidates even meet at Saddleback?
Too much religious B.S. is already tainting politics. Freedom of religion: fine. Praying for rain on Obama's convention: bizarre.
It is easy for Mccain to say he opposes abortion as that is his party's platform. Obama is in a sticky situation in that you can't really say XYZ about the morality of it all, then say you support Roe vs. Wade. It is not a black and white issue, but unfortunately, Red America tends to vote based largely on this issue. (That and their friggin guns....)
Obama's best bet is selling his admin as way better than the last 8 years, which NO AMERICAN IN THEIR RIGHT MIND can say were good in any way.
It's branding 101. You have the pick the better of the 2, and hope they follow through on at least half of their pie in the sky promises.
Posted by: FromJapan | Sep 8, 2008 1:55:04 AM
Do over! Do over! Barry wants a do over!
There'll be a ton of these in the coming
days.
Posted by: grizzly bare | Sep 8, 2008 1:41:55 AM
Post a comment

