Obama Supporters, why is it above Obama's paygrade to know when life begins but...?

Question

not above it to take it?

can anyone explain that...

I mean I just want some consistency...with your Nominee...

and I'm a Democrat...who doesn't buy into his Clown Policy

Answer 1

Speaking of clowns...you said you were taking a week off,,,Surely you need it

Answer 2

The question of when "life begins" is a very complicated philosophical question. If a politician even tried to give an answer which didn't embarrass him or herself, it would be too complicated to be easily reproduced in the media and regardless of what the answer was, the inability of the average voter to understand it would harm the politician. If you don't use one syllable words, simple concepts, pretty pictures, and shiny things, American voters tend to get lost.

And the part of your question "but not above it to take it?" makes no sense. If a given fetus at isn't yet a "human life," then aborting that fetus wouldn't be taking a human life. The question of whether abortion involves taking a human life hinges on whether a fetus is in fact a human life (a complicated philosophical concept), the very thing in question. There is no inconsistency here except in your own mind.

If it is above Obama's pay grade, my dear, it is even more so above yours. Stick to your simple concepts and pretty pictures.  

Answer 3

Its McCain who killed hundreds of innocent in Vietnam and many Americans in his carrier, not Obama.

Answer 4

Thier are some Snakes on the plane tonight !

Answer 5

I do not recall Obama claiming anything was "above his paygrade.  What specifically is your question?

Answer 6

He is suggesting that only God can determine when life begins -- far above Sen Obama's pay grade.

Sen. Obama makes secular law, not cannon.  Leave decisions like that to religious institutions.  See if they can agree.  Probably not -- and they are way above the pay grade of a US Senator who might or might not become president.

Answer 7

He was not asked when life begins. He was asked when a fetus should be provided human rights.

That is a political question not a scientific or religous question which is what he is paid for.

It shows to me he used a canned answer to a question he knew would come up in some fashion.

Answer 8

I don't I don't

Man can't say anything with out reversing it the next day.

Answer 9

Right.  Obama logic:  If we can't really determine when life begins  (above my pay grade), it's OK to kill it.  Then we'll sort it out somewhere down the line

Answer 10

Can you smell my fear too?

How many people must call you a r****d before you start to believe it yourself?

You are setting yourself up for a fall.

Answer 11

Who knows, problay the same reason McCain supports Abortion

Answer 12

Obama can't answer that. Just ask his adviser, Obama's just a puppet.

Answer 13

I think his clown policy is reasonable.  But I think it's about time we all do something about these d**n clowns....taking lives.  I saw a movie about killer clowns and it's just shameful.    

Answer 14

to the first answerer above, here's when.  Regarding babies who survive a failed abortion, he was among the few not to support the baby born alive act in illinois. The act was not an abortion question. Some way it was, but proof of this is that in spite of Obama's outrageous stand on this issue, the bill passed anyway, and abortion rights were in fact not affected.

The bill made it a crime to just let babies die on the table if they are born. The bill requires DRs to attend to the living child. That's all. Obama voted "present". Good grief.

Thank goodness it passed.

Answer 15

You would think that if you couldn't answer the question as to when life actually begins (which isn't true by the way) then caution might be in order as to avoid killing someone..

Answer 16

When did he take someone's life?

Edit: I'm sorry if you have akward wording.  Here's a better answer.

While we don't have a record of Obama's 2003 comments on SB 1082, he did express his objection to the 2001 and 2002 bills.

Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. … I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

Obama, Senate floor, 2001: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

You are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.