Obama: My Answer on Abortion at Saddleback Church was Too Flip

"Then why is she trying to use her political office to force all of her religious values down everyone else's throat?

She is hardly the one to separate church and state. Every decision she makes, reeks of her religiosity. "

Posted by: GeorgiaforObama | Sep 7, 2008 11:51:10 PM
_______________________

Like what???????

The only decisions we have seen of Sarah's regarding religion have been those affecting her family... not her state!

And she sticks to her convictions.... but "pro-life" is a "pro-choice, is it not?

So show me!

America*centric,

Perhaps you should go research the Alaskan Independent Party (AIP). Then you would know why the question was raised.

Ms. Palin believes her pro-life stance gives voice to the unborn. Well I'm here to give voice to the Polar Bears. They'd like to be around to birth their unborns too! How dare she prevent them from being entered on the endangered species list.

Polar Bears for Obama!

She believes in separation of stae and religion..... just like it says in our constitution!

I applaud that in a person.
________________________________

Then why is she trying to use her political office to force all of her religious values down everyone else's throat? She is hardly the one to separate church and state. Every decision she makes, reeks of her religiosity.

I ran across this earlier today....

"Mrs. Palin needs to be reminded that Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor."

....this is the best post I've read yet!

Polar Bears for Obama!

I totally agree with the poster, "Mike," who makes an excellent point:

*If* there is any question about when life begins or when a fetus is entitled to civil rights -- and Obama has admitted that there *is* such a question in his mind--that it's "above [his] pay grade" -- then as moral humans we are obligated to err on the side of caution to ensure that we protect that life.

The death penalty is not administered or prescribed if there is a question whether a suspect has committed a capital crime.

Firefighters take heroic measures if there is a chance that people (even animals) are inside a burning building.

There are numerous examples of the lengths we go to protect human life when we suspect its presence.

But not Obama. He says he doesn't know; he can't figure it out. He doesn't know, so let's just go ahead and do something lethal.

He could be respected if he expressed a reasoned opinion about when sentient, protectable life begins and then based his stance on abortion on that. But he doesn't.

He doesn't say "I don't think human life begins until after birth, ergo, abortion at any time is morally acceptable. He just says it is beyond his ability to determine that.

Is he afraid to actually state his belief?

Or is he really so inhumane that he would willingly take a human life (or risk doing so) based on sheer ignorance?

Never mind his lone vote in support of letting born-alive babies be allowed to die of neglect following botched abortions.

What he's really saying is that he just doesn't have much respect for life.

'How can Palin be Pentacostal and a member of the Alaskan Independent Party?
They don't seem to go together. "

--------------------

She believes in separation of stae and religion..... just like it says in our constitution!

I applaud that in a person.

How can Palin be Pentacostal and a member of the Alaskan Independent Party?
They don't seem to go together.

I am pro life yet don't want to impose it on anyone. The last thing I need in whashington is someone in the white house monitoring women's vagina. That is not part of their job description. So Miss Palin thank you but no thanks. only a fool would think of the issue of abortion as a simple-one-way issue. this is the most complex issue at hand right now.

"No Lee,

That was not the question asked at Saddleback.

That was a separate issue asked over Obama's (alleged) support of letting a fetus/baby die after a botched partial birth abortion.

Now, the question you ask is whether said fetus/baby would be better off alive with perhaps some birth defects, or to be let to "expire"."

__________________

I am pro-choice, but Obama's vote to permit the living being expelled from it's mother during a botched up abortion
to die uncared for in a trash tray.... is both immoral, and inhumane!

That he took this stand and still tries to support his unacceptable stand... is bbeyond comprehension.

For a man who has been the initiator of many flip-flops..... he should be sharp enough to know that THIS is one which should be added to the list!

I certainly hope that all of you Catholics who are pro-lifers consider dropping Obama like a hot coal after that comment. If you still vote for Obama after seeing how flippant his response was to that statement than all I can say is that you must really be drinking gallons of that laced kool-aid! Or, do you only vote pro-life when it is convenient for you?

kAT:
"" We need to make sure that they place Palin under the same scrutiny as they did with Obama . . . ."

THAT'S A JOKE!

Obama hs been treated with white kid gloves; the media annointed him early on and neglected to look into all sorts of glaring contradictions in his skinny resume.

He could do no wrong; the joke about the Messiah.... was NO JOKE!

Should Palin be treated the same way, she will come off just as she appears... squeaky clean!

But even if she is treated more the way Hillary was, she will still come across as a more accomplished and experienced administrator than B O.!

Obama has had to clarify NUMEROUS statements.

Do we really need a President who needs an interpreter?

The Majority of American's don't agree with Palin's stand on this issue. Rove and Schmidt have used this as a wedge issue the last two elections with great success. The question is can they do it again. Now George's interview with Obama was important. Obama stands with the Majority of Americans. The problem is that Palin will never be interviewed by George Stephanopoulos nor the other shows. But Schmidt has allowed her to do an interview with Charles Gibson. Schmidt thinks Gibson will not ask the hard questions of Palin because of the Democrat Debates. Perhaps Schmidt is right. This now will be the media's one chance to interview Palin before she goes behind the walls of Schmidt and Rove only to be let out for the Biden debate. Then Schmidt and Rove will selectively choose Fox News or the Conservative Christian TV media for remaining interviews. The attack ads will be coming at a faster pace. We already saw a preview of this from her the last ten days. After her interview with Charlies Gibson Palin will lead their negative ads from behind the protective wall of Schmit and Rove right to election night on November 4th. McCain said a few months ago the last 48 hours may decide this race. Guess who will be attack?

In just three days Obama has said the surge was successful and has tried to make up for his "above my paygrade" comment.

He was ripped to shreds at the Repub. Convention and now he's doing damage control.

Palin, Guliani, Huck, Thompson made Obama's attack dogs look like little fluffy poodles.

Great answer, Mike! I like another poster here is pro-life for myself and pro-choice for others as I sincerely believe that all our actions are between us and God. Only He can judge, understand and forgive. Our conscience is our guide and we have to live with the consequences of our actions.

But Polosi is such a hypocrite - she is saying that as an ardent practicing Catholic, she has studied this issue for a long time ....! Well, she should be against abortion if she were such a Catholic and she should be in the vatican as she knows all the answers!

Obama's flippant response about such an important issue probably didn't sit too well with many people.

Notice you don't hear a lot about Obama and the evangelical vote anymore.
McCain is winning 2:1 among Catholics even with Biden.

Combine Obama's comment with Pelosi's comment about abortion--well that's got to be good for McCain.

Obama's non-answer on a baby's human rights is very revealing. In stating that the issue is "above his paygrade" he admits he doesn't have an answer and is not sure when newly conceived life is human. Since there is doubt in his mind one would think the logical moral choice for him would be to protect rather than destroy it, just in case it's human. In other words, do no harm. However, he, despite being unsure as to the human status of the unborn, stubbornly supports the legal right to kill them.

Test yourselves on this. Wouldn't you always want to error on the side of caution before you do something which could end someone else's life or risk serious harm to them? Wouldn't you check to see if the kids are still playing behind the car before you back up? Doesn't a building demolition crew do a thorough check of the facility before they destroy it just in case someone is in there? Doesn't a fireman rush into a burning house when a neighbor says there might be someone in there? Of course, because that's the right thing to do. Not doing so is not only gross negligence, but it's not human.

McCain's position is solid and it stands up to logical thinking, even if he's wrong about the exact time we become human, which I don't think he is.

Obama says we are our brother's keeper. OK, then he should reconsider his position in favor of killing of what may be many of his brothers and sisters. Over 40 million and counting.

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.

Debra - Most Americans go wih Palin's faith? OMG, I should hope not. Most don't talk in tongues like the congregation at her Pentecostal related church. Most don't writhe and swoon in their sense of release. Most don't disparage Jews for not accepting Jesus as their personal saviour. Most don't view war and environmental plunder as god's plan. There's nothing very typical about both Palin and her church.