So here’s the latest from Obama… I tried to get it down word-for-word as best I could.

While he was in the great state of Indiana, George Stephanopolous asked him about his answer to Rick Warren at the Saddleback debate.  As we all know by now, Obama said that answering the question, “at what point does a baby get human rights, in your opinion,” was, in his words, “above my pay grade.”

George suggested that maybe his answer was too flip– and Obama agreed.  He answered:

“Probably.  I mean, I-I-wha-what I intended to say is, uh, that as a Christian, I have, uh, I have a lot of humility about, uh, understanding when does the soul enter into, uh, a–” [George interjects: “Goes back to Augustine.”] “It does.  It’s a pretty tough question.  And, so, uh, all I meant to communicate was that I don’t presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.  Uh, what I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, that it’s one that families strugge with all the time, and that, uh, in wrestling with those issues, I don’t think that the government criminalizing the choices the families make is the best answer for reducing abortions.  I think the better answer, and this was reflected in the Democratic platform, is to figure out how do we make sure that young mothers, or, or women, who have a pregnancy that’s unexpected or difficult to have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices, including adoption and keeping the child.”

So there’s his whole answer– I’ve given you everything, so I’m not accused of taking anything out of context.  Here are my thoughts:

1) Rick Warren’s question was when does a baby get human rights.  It was not when ensoulment takes place.  Obama joins the laundry list of people attempting the dance around the rights question– a legal question– by throwing out theological discussions into the ring.  George’s Augustine comment was a direct reference to Pelosi’s answer, as she attempted to tap dance the question by throwing poor Augustine into it.

The question is a legal question, which, last time I checked, is not above Obama’s pay grade.  In fact, it’s one of the reasons he gets paid at all.  It is a legal question, though it is ultimately a question that relates to natural law.  We don’t really have the power to decide when a baby gets human rights– modern science tells us that at conception, the DNA of a man and a woman combine to form a new, unique human being.  The last time people tried to argue in this country that some human beings didn’t have full rights… well, Senator Obama should know all about that argument.   So while the question is a legal question, it has a moral answer that cannot be disputed.

If he doesn’t want to answer theological questions, maybe he should go to the people who can answer them.  Maybe he should ask what Augustine was really talking about.  Because even if Augustine had some varied answers about ensoulment, he never held abortion to be morally defensible.

2) Yep, abortion is a moral issue.  But it’s also a legal one.  Last time I checked, those elected into office are supposed to make laws for the common good.  That includes taking a stand on moral issues like abortion and making laws as a result.

Obama’s VP choice doesn’t understand this.  I’m sorry, Biden, but as a politician, you do have to impose your beliefs on a pluralistic society.  That’s why we elect you.  If you don’t impose your beliefs to support the common good of society…. well, we have anarchy.  I’m sorry.  We can’t impose our belief that rape is immoral.  We can’t stop that thug from beating his wife… it’s our belief that it’s wrong, but we can’t impose it…. (For the record, Biden said, “I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.”  Are you kidding me?)

So why do we let Obama do his theological dance?  Fine, don’t talk theology, Obama.  Talk about rights.  Answer the question.  (Biden even brought Aquinas and “quickening” into the mix.  The people who do these politicians’ thinking for them are working over time on this issue!  When was the last time Tom Brokaw and Meet the Press heard Aquinas referenced?)

3) Obama refers to criminalizing the choices families make.  Are these choices really being made by families?  or are they being made by poor vulnerable girls whom Planned Parenthood and our sex-driven culture have force-fed the Pill… and suddenly, when the Pill doesn’t work, the pregnant girls go back to PP… only to be “helped” with abortion.  And then PP leaves them wounded, torn-apart, and mentally scarred for life.    I don’t think the government should be criminalizing choices… I think they should be criminalizing the people and institutions wounding young women, all for selfish greed.

4) I thought it was rather humorous- in a sickening kind of way- how he stumbled over the word “mothers.”  Notice how quickly he changed it to “women”??  The word ‘mother’ conjures up the idea of ‘child.’  And while does use the word child in that same sentence, when he refers to “keeping the child,” the notion of children being associated with pregnancy is not one these politicians like to conjure up.

5) He doesn’t answer the question.  Any of the questions, really.  What is the Democratic platform that supports the young women who face difficult pregnancies?  The Pill, abortion… then what?  Are they really trying to figure out how to support women in making “a whole range of choices”?  I’ve seen no proof of that, Senator.

And stop using my farm “fly-over” state for your own advancement… posing in a barn for this interview.  It made me want to gag.