Created Equal....the Pursuit of Life

Senator Obama’s position on infant human rights is well known. We analyzed his illogical declaration in support of abortion here. Senator Biden is pro-choice for women, but pro-death for potentially any of the unborn. Senator Pelosi is ardently pro-choice, anti-life, stating the beginning of human life cannot be known. Both Obama and Pelosi took paragraphs to give convoluted explanations that did not answer Pastor Rick Warren’s or Tom Brokaw’s simple question.

Senator John McCain, presumptive GOP presidential nominee, answered Pastor Rick Warren’s question, "At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?" with a quick, short, decisive response, "At the moment of conception."

Senator McCain’s love and respect for life wears shoes in his daily life, in the person of his adopted daughter.

"John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her."

And nominee McCain’s selected VP running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, respects equality and the life of the unborn as well.

"Four months into her most recent pregnancy, Palin learned the child would have Down syndrome, and she said she never had any doubts about whether she would have the baby.

"We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential," Palin told AP earlier this year in describing what she and her husband had confronted. Trig, her fifth child, was born in April."

The contrast between the Democrat and Republican presidential/vice presidential ticket cannot be sharper. One provides no hope for the unborn and possible terminal change. The other provides hope, dignity, respect, equality and the opportunity to pursue life. McCain and Palin value life, not just of the born, but of the pre-born.

I would never argue a president should be elected on the basis of one issue. But this year, there is a very stark contrast between the two contenders on this basic human right.

The McCain/Palin team, which recognizes equality and chooses life and the pursuit of life for all, can be trusted to provide national security which is the fundamental framework we need for the pursuit of happiness in post-natal life.

Pelosi and Conception

Isn’t it amazing that a professor of constitutional law cannot articulate a coherent argument to state when he believes a baby receives human rights? Almost any professor is well enough versed in his studies to articulate fundamental statements about crucial concepts in his field of teaching. Yet Professor Obama cannot do that.

The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, cannot do it either. Tom Brokaw asked, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker, when does life begin?" She responded,

I would say that, as an ardent practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. 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. As a [sic] say, Catholic Church, for centuries, has been discussing this, and there are those who have decided-

While it is above Obama’s paygrade to answer a question about infant human rights either theologically or scientifically, Pelosi, as a studied and practicing Catholic, believes it cannot be answered from dogmatic or historical theology.

Her studied answer is that ". . . the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition (i.e. when life begins)." Many in the Catholic Church have refuted Pelosi, showing that the official church position is that life begins at conception. For Pelosi, since it cannot be determined by the Catholic Church, then it cannot be theologically determined—"And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins."

In fact, theology should not be considered, says Pelosi, "The point is, is that it [when life begins] shouldn’t have impact on a woman’s right to choose."

For Pelosi, the uncertainties of theology are many, but the specificity and precision of Roe v. Wade is very clear. Just as Obama thinks he can answer the question legally, so does Pelosi. Pelosi is willing to accept the ex cathedra pronouncement of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in Roe v. Wade, but she cannot endure the ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.

On what grounds does Pelosi accept the one and not the other? She states none, for she has none. Hers is simply an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. She hasn’t answered anything. Appealing to law does not make it right.

While she wants abortion legal, she knows what is legal is not necessarily moral. So ". . . it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors that a woman has to make with her doctor and her God."

Pelosi says, ". . . it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare and reduce the number of abortions."

And she declares, ". . . we have to handle this as respectfully, this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully, and not politicize it as it has been."

The woman has no idea that she politicized the sacred ground by appealing to the Supreme Court of the United States, rejecting the Supreme Court of her own church. For Pelosi, God, the Ultimate Lawgiver and Judge, must take Roe v. Wade into consideration when a woman contemplates an abortion with her doctor, for that is a woman’s unalienable right.

The Radical Left

A panel discussing "The Military and Progressives" was held today at the YearlyKos. A young man in uniform stood to argue that the surge is working and reducing Iraqi casualties. The panel did not want to hear him because this young man’s view is contrary to what they want to propagate.

"Democratic presidential candidates expected to attend the conference are former Sens. John Edwards and Mike Gravel; Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Chris Dodd; and Rep. Dennis Kucinich. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also are expected."

Read the account.

When these Leftists attend this far left annual extension of the DailyKos, the media gives them a pass. If the Republican presidential candidates attended a right wing event as far right of center as the DailyKos is left of center, the liberal media would be highly critical and would fall all over themselves in derision. The Republican candidates would be smeared through guilt by association. In contrast, none of the Democrat presidential candidates will be painted as anti-Semitic. See the previous post.

Kudos to the young military man who wore his uniform in the midst of a bunch of military-haters and who dared to attempt to speak his mind.