“When do babies get human rights?”
“I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade”
Then the questions that beg to be asked are:
1. Mr. Obama, in practical terms, whose “pay grade” is it to assign specificity as to when babies acquire human rights? Sir, as you know, babies are born or aborted as we speak, and as the leader of this nation you will be responsible to take action. Have you just shirked your responsibility and deferred the decision to an unnamed source with a higher “pay grade”? Will you inform your constituency who this “pay grade” is and how he, she, it, they will affect the fate of babies in real-time?
2. If this task is beyond and above your “pay grade”, then how do you explain your track record of consistently deciding against granting unborn babies human rights? Who or what had authorized you to make those decisions? Will you please share that information with the citizens whose lives and welfare you might be in custody of?
Thank you Sir
Concerned
-IAT
ILIAD TERRA,
Obama is simply saying he’s either not yet comfortable or not qualified enough to answer such a question at this point in time.
I’ll ask you an equally difficult question: who exactly is going to Heaven?
The obvious and mindless answer would, of course, be ‘those who have accepted JC as their Lord and Savior and keep his commandments.’ BUT who *exactly* are they? I’d like you to succinctly point out who they are. Tell me, who *deserves* to go to Heaven? I suppose the next logical and mindless answer would be ‘only God can decide.’
So, you see, even Christians have tricky little answers to those traps people like to spring on them too.
-Iris
BRAMBLETON:
Iris,
Let me preface by saying that I am Baptist and have been a Christian for about 15 years now.
“Abortion is just ONE issue amongst MANY issues.”
–> While that is certainly correct, there is probably no bigger issue for most Christian conservatives. As opposed to the other issues you make reference to, this is a matter of life and death. And again, that is not to say that the other issues are somehow meaningless or irrelevant.
“How about we discuss: child molestation by priests”
–> What would you like to discuss? I’m not sure McCain or Obama has any recourse to remedy this situation other than to hold individuals accountable for their crimes.
“high divorce rates among Christian couples”
–> Agreed. This is a serious issue. But again, I’m not sure what the candidates can do to address this issue. Personally, I think it all comes back to accountability again. And for that reason, I would make every “Christian” couple include the words, “Divorce is not an option” in their vows. Sure, it won’t end divorce but it might lower the percentages a bit.
“low church turnout (except for Holidays, of course)”
–> This is more of a function of each individual church as opposed to something that can be handled nationally. I’m not really sure how you would like this issue addressed.
John:
Above my pay grade? Hmmmm..now there’s an intelligent answer on one of the leading topics of discussion within the US.
Made my mind up……
Posted on August 18, 2008 15:56
Irischermann:
BRAMBLETON,
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful responses. I appreciate them. I’d like to respond in kind.
“Abortion is just ONE issue amongst MANY issues.”
–> While that is certainly correct, there is probably no bigger issue for most Christian conservatives. As opposed to the other issues you make reference to, this is a matter of life and death. And again, that is not to say that the other issues are somehow meaningless or irrelevant.
Your comment “…a matter of life and death” is very true. I’m inclined to agree that it is indeed a matter of life and death. But isn’t War a very similar matter? Didn’t a number of Conservative Christians support the war in Iraq? Doesn’t that mean they support killing other human beings? Does this mean it’s socially acceptable within American Christian circles to support taking a life AFTER it’s born rather than BEFORE? I’m not so sure we Christians can have it both ways: we must either entirely support both acts of killing or don’t. Murder is still murder, whether it be by a doctor’s hands or a soldier’s.

Again, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
Iliad Terra:
Irischermann
I do agree with you. And I appreciate Mr. Obama’s newfound position that he is not qualified to define when a baby is granted human rights.
However, his so-called new position stands in stark and dramatic contrast to his previous voting record against born-alive babies.
This contradiction is immensely problematic in a leader. How can he reconcile that he took action against the vulnerable whilst he claims he is unqualified to do so?
And when the life of a living being hangs on the balance, how and when will he arrive at a decision as to where to lead this nation he wishes to preside over…all the while the clock is indeed ticking…for the babies…
Pebbles in the pond, hoping to create ripples of awareness,
-IAT
Irischermann:
Iliad Terra,
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful responses too.
Obama knows his own record…and so do we. Traditionally, politicians frequently get asked “gotcha” questions and the “when a baby is granted human rights” is certainly one of them. I don’t mean to sound insensitive but it’s the truth. Of course, Christians want their President to value the sanctity of life but that’s where it gets tricky. I said this in a recent post here:
“I’m inclined to agree that it is indeed a matter of life and death. But isn’t War a very similar matter? Didn’t a number of Conservative Christians support the war in Iraq? Doesn’t that mean they support killing other human beings? Does this mean it’s socially acceptable within American Christian circles to support taking a life AFTER it’s born rather than BEFORE? I’m not so sure we Christians can have it both ways: we must either entirely support both acts of killing or don’t. Murder is still murder, whether it be by a doctor’s hands or a soldier’s.”
So, yes, life is important to Christians and it should be important to our President. But, I beg the question, why is it acceptable to protect unborn babies but it’s also acceptable to send our men and women overseas to kill others?
August 18, 2008 4:24 PM |
Brambleton:
Iris,
Thank you for your reply. Below is a passage that I read once and kept with me as a response to Christianity and War.
Because mankind was given a free will and they could choose to obey God or do evil, we now live in an environment where evil men and good men are at war. God hates war; however, it is necessary to maintain order in the earth and overcome those who would like to destroy good
We must understand that God instituted civil authorities to maintain order on the earth. God uses them to restrain evil and they should be obeyed for this purpose.
Read Romans 13:1-5. From these verses we see that governments can elect to bear the sword (go to war) to deal with evil men. Although the act of war is a harsh form of punishment upon evil invaders, the alternative is far worse — the destruction of innocent people by wicked aggressors.
No soldier who is a Christian desires to kill another; however, the Lord Himself, did not chastise a Centurion soldier in the Bible in the matter of his occupation. On the contrary, the Lord commended this man for his understanding of authority and his great faith when he called upon the Lord to heal his servant.
August 18, 2008 4:40 PM |
Iris:
You are right.
The questions of life and birth transcend all denominations and worldviews. I pray that the leaders of this nation empathize with children all over the world.
I pray that both Messrs Obama and McCain exercise tremendous clarity and nobility in their choices and policies:
Before another bomb falls and orphans or maims another Iraqi or Afghan child, before another child in this country grows up in poverty, and before another unborn child is stripped of his or her choice, let us expect from our leaders the highest degree of reverence for what we place in their custody.
The office of the president is not a fickle affair, nor is it simply a popularity contest. It is frequently visited with hard choices.
We reserve the right to demand the highest standard from both candidates.
Irischermann:
Brambleton and Iliad Terra,
Thank you both for your thoughts on the matter. It’s refreshing to read such well thought out opinions. You’re both assets to this forum and Christendom. I wish others would follow your examples when having intelligent discussions.
Thanks again.
P.S. My name is actually “Irischermann” (German for Irish Man), not “Iris.” :)
August 18, 2008 6:22 PM |
IMO a President needs to have at least the following traits:
1) He/She needs to be able to analyze a situation after using their many resources to collect information describing all sides of an issue.
2) He/She needs to be able to condense that information into an action or direction that deals with the situation.
3) Almost always there is not enough information available to lay out a definitive direction, so a President needs to have good judgement to pick a direction because otherwise the result is no action at all. Sometimes one needs to wait for more information, but often (if not usually) the best thing to do is pick a direction.
I am good at 1 & 2 but suck at 3. Bush is often reported as skipping 1 & 2 and jumping right to 3. If so, that is bad. The more he is asked to speak without a script, Obama looks like he may be good at 1 & 2 but suck at 3. This is the so called paralysis by analysis. It makes for a good teacher but not a good leader or CEO type.
August 18, 2008 6:23 PM |
Anonymous:
Re Abortion:
It is not possible to say life begins with conception, as every medical doctor knows with certainty, for human embryology is empirical science not philosophical or religious hypothesis, and still support Roe vs Wade.
The seemingly flippant answer “above my pay grade” is not nuanced, just lawyerly dodge ball.
That said Roe vs Wade is not a mandate to abort unborn children but to protect abortionists, who are aborting healthy unborn children in healthy women on the grounds they would otherwise seek out quacks and endanger their health and life.
The real issue: right to life of an unborn child vs right to convenience of its mother, seems to be missing in every pro-abortion debate.
August 18, 2008 9:39 PM |
Steve W.:
Maybe the reason Obama did so poorly on the abortion question is that his position on abortion is fundamentally at odds with what orthodox Christians have believed for mroe than 2000 years. He didn’t have a good answer to the abortion questions because there IS no other good answer. The only CONSISTENT answer (other than the pro-life one) is the one Peter Singer would give. But admitting that infanticide is okay is still taboo.
August 19, 2008 10:08 AM
Iliad:
Steve,
You wrote earlier in this blog: “…But admitting that infanticide is okay is still taboo.â€
Wow! Are you suggesting that we should overcome this so-called “taboo� Do you mean by your choice of the word “still†a temporal reference point that would eventually be disposed of, as in ‘thank goodness we have finally gotten rid of that restrictive taboo’?
I hope you’re not waiting for a day when de rigueur would be – um – ‘we can now freely speak about infanticide! Yea! Another milestone for the civil rights of the infanticide-taboo victims! It is finally okay to commit infanticide and not be ashamed of it…
hmmm… quite intriguing .
It’s one thing to instinctually attack, and altogether another to seek solutions and understanding.
August 19, 2008 8:00 PM