McCain Wasn't in a Cone of SilenceFollow

There ya go again! On what evidence do you base this 'cosideration'?

Links? Evidence? Or is it just what you say when you have no idea what the hell you're talking about?

Believe it or not some people believe life is a miracle.


You misspelled "suckers" in there.

I think you guys are missing the key point here. He wasn't asked when life begins (which oddly is what McCain was asked. I can only imagine he gave the easier one to Obama since they know he's pro-choice). He was asked at what point a baby should receive "human rights". That question is most definitely *not* above his pay grade. That's a very human question about our legal system and when it recognizes a person to begin to have rights.


That's the key question, and he either completely missed it (possible given the context) or avoided it. In any case, he avoided even answering the question on a "when does life begin" angle either, so his answer is doubly weasely. A President can state that he can't say when life begins. It's a cop-out IMO, but you can at least support his suggestion that he can't really say. But he was asked when a baby should receive rights. Hence my earlier statement that his answer should have at least included the broad boundaries (sometime between when the sperm reaches the egg and when the baby is born).


This is particularly relevant to the topic of say partial birth abortions. Specifically given some recent talk about his vote on a particular bill having to do with the issue. I get that his position on the issue makes it difficult for him to nail down such a time, but his answer wasn't a good one. By supporting bills that allow abortion he *is* making a decision about when a baby gains human rights, because presumably at that moment it ceases to be abortion and becomes murder.

I guess what I'm getting at here is that if you don't feel enough conviction to stand up and defend your positions, then maybe your position isn't such a great one. I have zero problems with the pro-choice position. But if you are arguing that a woman has a right to abort, you really need to have some clue as to where that right ends and the baby's right to life begins. If you believe that is at birth, then say it. If you think it's in the third trimester, then say that. But Obama failed to do so.


That's why it was a bad answer.

I think you guys are missing the key point here.

I can attest that never, once, has this been the case on this forum. Perhaps it's occurred on OOT, I couldn't say with confidence. Here, however, no one has ever "missed the key point".

Protip: When you notice something, the 30 other people smarter and more observant that you noticed it also, they just appropriately determined it's significance.

When 29 out of those 30 other people are raving liberal lunatics you can't rely on them to even come close to approaching anything resembling common sense or any kind of moral base.

You're missing the point.

See what I did there?

Let's not have this devolve into a semantical debate. McCain and Obama were to receive the same set of questions. The difference is academic.



So you're telling me you heard his response and didn't know where he stood after he'd finished? He didn't back away from the question. You were left with one possible need for clarification and given the nature of the forum it's highly understandable why he'd leave that unsaid.

Edited, Aug 19th 2008 5:43pm by Sarren

I don't think it's a matter of semantics at all. He was asked a relevant question to the issue: "When does a baby gain human rights". Certainly, it's similar to asking when live begins within the context of abortion, but it's not *exactly* the same question. More to the point, it's an easier question to answer.


Obama answered the question by tossing out a broad position on the issue, but he was still avoiding the specific question that he was asked. It would be like if I were to ask Smash at what point he thought someone was "wealthy" in the context of our usual debates about taxation and wealth redistribution. He would clearly understand *why* I was asking the question, and I'd certainly expect him to address the issue of wealth in that broader context, but I'd *also* expect him to answer the damn question.

Same deal here. We get that there are issues of the rights of the mother here. But that's only half the equation, right? Presumably a decision about when abortion should be legal must also be about the point when a developing zygote/embryo/fetus/baby gains human rights. Because at that point, the child's right to life presumably outweighs the womans right to make decisions about her own body. That point is at the heart of the entire issue. It literally *is* the abortion debate. Or at least it should be.



No. I don't. Because he didn't say where he stood on the issue of abortion. He said he was pro-choice and respected the right of a woman to make her own decisions. But what does that mean? Without any acknowledgment of when a baby gains human rights he could be supporting anything from abortions only in the first trimester all the way up to allowing women to kill their children at any point until they are 18 without legal recourse.


Sure. I'm taking that to an extreme. But if he believes that human rights are gained at birth, he needs to say that. You can't actually have a position on the abortion issue if you can't make that determination. All you really have is rhetoric.


And for the record. I'm pro-choice. I believe that human rights ought to be fully gained at the point at which a human life can survive outside its mother (and go on to be a normal human, so embryo's don't have rights, just the potential for them). That obviously changes as our science improves as well. Also, I believe that just because that developing baby is not yet a "human" and does not have full rights, does not mean that it's potential is not without value and worth protecting. I'm generally ok with first trimester abortions for reasons of choice (especially in the first 5-6 weeks). I'd prefer we restrict abortions to health reasons during the second trimester (legitimate ones, that actually represent a significant threat of death or unrecoverable physical injury to the mother). Past that point, an abortion should only ever be performed in cases where it's virtually certain that the mother will die without it and the baby can't be removed and survive on its own (also without causing the death of the mother).


It's not that hard to clearly define your position on this issue. If you actually care about the issue and not just about what groups of people will support or oppose you based on where you stand on the issue. Anyone who's actually honestly thought about the issue of abortion should be able to answer the question he was asked. That he chose not to means that he either doesn't have a real position or didn't want to say what it was.


So yeah. He avoided the question. Saying you support a womans right to choose really isn't sufficient IMO. It's rhetoric. Tell me what your actual position is. There's a reason the question was framed the way it was. If Warren wanted to just know what each candidate labeled themselves, he'd have asked if they were pro-choice or pro-life. He didn't. He asked that question specifically so he'd know to what degree and for what reason they held their position.


McCain answered it. Agree or disagree with his answer, he stood up and picked a position. Obama, typically, gave a non-committal answer. This has become a pretty blatant pattern with him too...

Edited, Aug 19th 2008 3:36pm by gbaji

Because at that point, the child's right to life presumably outweighs the womans right to make decisions about her own body. That point is at the heart of the entire issue. It literally *is* the abortion debate. Or at least it should be.


/yawn. Yeah, maybe this election will be all about abortion. Or perhaps buggy whips or ordinances allowing the female showing of ankle in mixed company.

Understand that this is politics. There are some questions that cannot receive an unscripted straight forward answer and this is one of those questions. If you want to fault him for "playing the game" be my guest, but it makes you seem like an idealistic child. McCain is obviously willing to pander and manipulate, which means Obama has no choice but to at least sugarcoat and dodge.

Anyone with an IQ slightly above average got a clear answer to the question. If you want to blame someone for the current state of affairs blame those who parrot talking points without research, or make their voting decisions based of the candidates religious views, or get overly pissy about a politician smoking a joint in college, ect...

Edited, Aug 19th 2008 6:57pm by Sarren