Above my paygrade

[Bill]

I statement most, if not all, will recognize from Obama speaking to the subject of when life begins.

I would agree that this is above his paygrade but I would ask why would he then choose to support the taking of life when he is clueless to when life begins? If it is above his paygrade then he has no right to push for an agenda for something he is clueless (admittedly) about. Leave it in the hands of those whose paygrade fits. There is only One at this level who gets to decide.

BF

[Timothy Bonney]

I statement most, if not all, will recognize from Obama speaking to the subject of when life begins.

I would agree that this is above his paygrade but I would ask why would he then choose to support the taking of life when he is clueless to when life begins? If it is above his paygrade then he has no right to push for an agenda for something he is clueless (admittedly) about. Leave it in the hands of those whose paygrade fits. There is only One at this level who gets to decide.

BF

Because he also believes it is "above his pay grade" to decide for all the women of the United States.

[Bruce Gourley]

I statement most, if not all, will recognize from Obama speaking to the subject of when life begins.

I would agree that this is above his paygrade but I would ask why would he then choose to support the taking of life when he is clueless to when life begins? If it is above his paygrade then he has no right to push for an agenda for something he is clueless (admittedly) about. Leave it in the hands of those whose paygrade fits. There is only One at this level who gets to decide.

BF

The Bible does not reveal when life begins, nor is science able to provide a definitive answer at this point.

[William Thornton]

His 'paygrade' answer was too flippant for the subject and just one of many examples why he did poorly in comparison to McCain at the Saddleback forum

He has come back and apologized and clarified his 'paygrade' remark.

[Timothy Bonney]

His 'paygrade' answer was too flippant for the subject and just one of many examples why he did poorly in comparison to McCain at the Saddleback forum

He has come back and apologized and clarified his 'paygrade' remark.

Yes, William, it was an incomplete answer. But, I don't believe it was flip. I think that is what he believes but, should have clarified it. But, I don't see much point in going after Barack on the abortion issue. It is no secret what his position is or has been.

[Bill]

I statement most, if not all, will recognize from Obama speaking to the subject of when life begins.

I would agree that this is above his paygrade but I would ask why would he then choose to support the taking of life when he is clueless to when life begins? If it is above his paygrade then he has no right to push for an agenda for something he is clueless (admittedly) about. Leave it in the hands of those whose paygrade fits. There is only One at this level who gets to decide.

BF

Because he also believes it is "above his pay grade" to decide for all the women of the United States.

But he is deciding with only some of the women when he supports the taking of life. When life begins is also above a woman's paygrade.

Even Bruce believes...

The Bible does not reveal when life begins, nor is science able to provide a definitive answer at this point.

So any choice for abortion is a choice against the possibility of life, for we mere humans.

Thanks for supporting this truth Bruce.

[russ]

So any choice for abortion is a choice against the possibility of life, for we mere humans.

So is a choice for a birth control pill. You got a problem with that one, too?

[Bruce Gourley]

I statement most, if not all, will recognize from Obama speaking to the subject of when life begins.

I would agree that this is above his paygrade but I would ask why would he then choose to support the taking of life when he is clueless to when life begins? If it is above his paygrade then he has no right to push for an agenda for something he is clueless (admittedly) about. Leave it in the hands of those whose paygrade fits. There is only One at this level who gets to decide.

BF

Because he also believes it is "above his pay grade" to decide for all the women of the United States.

But he is deciding with only some of the women when he supports the taking of life. When life begins is also above a woman's paygrade.

Even Bruce believes...

The Bible does not reveal when life begins, nor is science able to provide a definitive answer at this point.

So any choice for abortion is a choice against the possibility of life, for we mere humans.

Thanks for supporting this truth Bruce.

... abstinence is also a choice against the "possibility of life" ...

[Timothy Bonney]

But he is deciding with only some of the women when he supports the taking of life. When life begins is also above a woman's paygrade.

No, choice means choice for women and not the President. They get to decide. And, yes, some will decide contrary to your views on the issue and some will not.

[Ed Pettibone]

But he is deciding with only some of the women when he supports the taking of life. When life begins is also above a woman's paygrade.

No, choice means choice for women and not the President. They get to decide. And, yes, some will decide contrary to your views on the issue and some will not.

Ed: TIm, did you mean "No, Choice" or Pro Choice?

And Bill, when you say "When life begins is also above a woman's paygrade." I would ask have you ever heard of "Just Say No". And yes, Men should also be held responsible in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies.

[Timothy Bonney]

Nope. There is a comma after "no." what I meant was "no Bill, choice means..."

And, every time there is a Presidential election the whole abortion debate starts over because most of the Democratic candidates are pro-choice.
I honestly think there are Republicans who would vote for Satan himself if he declared himself pro-life. I think we need to get past single issue voting.

Banks are folding, the economy is tanking, people are losing their homes, and we are at war with a country we should have never gone to war with. It is hardly pro-life to support a candidate who wants to support more of the same that got us into this situation. We also need to consider issues of poverty and the economy which in fact effect the rate of abortion and effect the lives of already born children.

[Sandy]

Nope. There is a comma after "no." what I meant was "no Bill, choice means..."

And, every time there is a Presidential election the whole abortion debate starts over because most of the Democratic candidates are pro-choice.
I honestly think there are Republicans who would vote for Satan himself if he declared himself pro-life. I think we need to get past single issue voting.

Banks are folding, the economy is tanking, people are losing their homes, and we are at war with a country we should have never gone to war with. It is hardly pro-life to support a candidate who wants to support more of the same that got us into this situation. We also need to consider issues of poverty and the economy which in fact effect the rate of abortion and effect the lives of already born children.

How "pro-life" was it for the Bush administration to cut federal assistance to agencies that were doing some real good, and making great headway into preventing abortions from happening by providing ways for women who were considering abortion to have some other options? McCain voted for those budget cuts. How "pro-life" is it to make adoption impossible for millions of childless couples because the cost of a private adoption under the Bush administration has risen to an average of $20,000, mostly legal fees? The philosophy of "Well if they really want it, they'll sacrifice for it" doesn't cut it. But private adoption, which under the Clinton administration reduced the abortion total, isn't a Bush, or McCain priority.

This isn't just unfortunate ignorance on the part of evangelicals. It is tragic because they will vote for a politician who will do nothing about bank failures, the mortgage crisis, who will perpetuate other foreign disasters like Iraq, and who will essentially be another Herbert Hoover, living in the lap of luxury, courtesy of his rich wife, oblivious to the suffering of others. But the biggest tragedy is that, while they voted for him based simply on his political position on abortion, he will do absolutely nothing to stop abortion. He will not appoint a Supreme Court justice willing to go against the "settled law of the land" to overturn Roe. McCain thinks he's done all he needs to do in choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate. She's pro-life, but if elected, is in a position that can do absolutely nothing to change things. That's McCain's word on the subject.

Obama at least would provide some federal assistance to organizations who are working as hard as they can to help stop abortion in a proactive manner. That's a better pro-life position than McCain has to offer.

[Ed Pettibone]

Nope. There is a comma after "no." what I meant was "no Bill, choice means..."

And, every time there is a Presidential election the whole abortion debate starts over because most of the Democratic candidates are pro-choice.
I honestly think there are Republicans who would vote for Satan himself if he declared himself pro-life. I think we need to get past single issue voting.

Banks are folding, the economy is tanking, people are losing their homes, and we are at war with a country we should have never gone to war with. It is hardly pro-life to support a candidate who wants to support more of the same that got us into this situation. We also need to consider issues of poverty and the economy which in fact effect the rate of abortion and effect the lives of already born children.

ED: Tim, thanks for the clarification. I am in complete agreement with the second paragraph, however as you might suspect I would quibble with some of your editorializing in the thied.

[ET]

In the hunting world, they say to always be sure of your target before you pull the trigger. If there's any uncertainty, don't pull the trigger.

In the human world, we say, "We can't say for sure when life begins, but pull the trigger and kill it anyway."

[Rock]

I statement most, if not all, will recognize from Obama speaking to the subject of when life begins.

I would agree that this is above his paygrade but I would ask why would he then choose to support the taking of life when he is clueless to when life begins? If it is above his paygrade then he has no right to push for an agenda for something he is clueless (admittedly) about. Leave it in the hands of those whose paygrade fits. There is only One at this level who gets to decide.

BF

When I think of Barak Obama and John McCaing and how each of them of approaches the issue of abortion, I cannot help but think of the parable of the two sons:

"What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, "Son, go and work in the vineyard today.' He answered, "I will not'; but later he changed his mind and went. The father went to the second and said the same; and he answered, "I go, sir'; but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him.

McCain say says what evangelicals want to hear, but i doubt they he will do any more to reduce the number of abortions in this country than his pro-life predecessors have done.

Barak does not mouth the language that some evangelicals want to hear, but I have every confidence that there will be fewer abortions in this country when he is president because he is going do the things that need to be done to make more women want to keep their babies while at the same time doing the things that need to be done to help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

[Bill]

So any choice for abortion is a choice against the possibility of life, for we mere humans.

So is a choice for a birth control pill. You got a problem with that one, too?

... abstinence is also a choice against the "possibility of life" ...

Russ and Bruce,

Difference? Absolutely...

One is about choosing to not start a life, the other is about taking a life.

Of course you want to not discuss the subject of my quote abortion and focus on the idea of life. Take my comment in context, not out of it, please.

BF

[russ]

Bill,

You wrote that a choice for abortion was a choice against "the possibility" of life, not a choice against "life" itself. I was simply doing you the courtesy of taking you at your word. You apparently misstated what you meant.

I now take it that you mean abortion is murder, right? May I also further presume that you hold that to be the case for abortion at any point during a pregnancy?

And if you agree with Obama (as it seems to me you do) that deciding when life begins is above a human's "pay grade," then why would you then declare so confidently that abortion is murder, or "taking a life," since you don't seem able to say that a life actually exists in the womb?

I don't follow your logic.

[Bill]

Bill,

You wrote that a choice for abortion was a choice against "the possibility" of life, not a choice against "life" itself. I was simply doing you the courtesy of taking you at your word. You apparently misstated what you meant.

I now take it that you mean abortion is murder, right? May I also further presume that you hold that to be the case for abortion at any point during a pregnancy?

And if you agree with Obama (as it seems to me you do) that deciding when life begins is above a human's "pay grade," then why would you then declare so confidently that abortion is murder, or "taking a life," since you don't seem able to say that a life actually exists in the womb?

I don't follow your logic.

Russ,

I intended to write what I was thinking but should have been much clearer. Abortion is a choice aginst the possibility of continued life. I was thinking not the beginning of life but the continuation of a life already in motion. I can see where my words can be spinned so I hope my explanation will help.

Sorry to bring confusion and thanks for the kind way of seeking clarification.

[russ]

Apparently I came across as unkind; I apologize for that.

But I still don't follow your logic. If you can't say that a life has begun and exists in the womb because a declaration like that is above your pay grade, then how can you then state that abortion is taking a life?

Is the question unclear?

[Timothy Bonney]

And, I think you have to be clear about what kind of life we are talking about. Just before conception you have a sperm and an egg which most definitely are alive. After you combine the two you still have a zygote with a very similar level of life of a few combined cells.

People surmise that at conception is when the imagine of God is imparted on the life. But, as Bruce has said, we don't really know that. And, it might be more honest to admit that it is "above our pay grade" rather than just say what people want to say. Maybe Barack was just too honest for his own good.

[Haruo]

People surmise that at conception is when the imagine of God is imparted on the life.

And it needs to be reiterated that this surmise is not a universal even in Christian tradition. Although the current RC magisterium purports to sanction this surmise, Dr. Aquinas was of a very different opinion, relating the imparting of the Imago Dei to the quickening of the fetus rather than to the conception of the zygote. And it is quite possible to hold for the position of our own Chris, that it is when the baby starts to breathe that the Breath of Life is in her/him, as Genesis (in a passage Chris refuses to take seriously ) says of the late-term Adam.

Bill's certainty of God's position on this is not the universal consensus of the Church; while Bill has as much right to have his opinion as Obama has to have a different one, I prefer Obama's take on it to Palin's, in one aiming to be placed in authority over all the nation's womenfolk, so to speak.

Haruo

[Bill]

Apparently I came across as unkind; I apologize for that.

But I still don't follow your logic. If you can't say that a life has begun and exists in the womb because a declaration like that is above your pay grade, then how can you then state that abortion is taking a life?

Is the question unclear?

I apologize if I misread you. Words read and not heard can be taken wrong, easily.

Let's asume Obama is correct and the knowing when life begins is above his paygrade and we believe likewise for ourselves. The position, as I see it, would be best if we were to take the stand that life begins at conception. This is foundationally pro-life. Since, as Obama states this is above his paygrade, and I can accept such a position as his, then why take a position which "might" take a life (abortion - murder) rather than one which might not take a life?

Leave the decision to Him who gives and takes life (Christ), not in our errant hands.

Either it does or does not. If we don't know, the why choose the option which might?

[Haruo]

Apparently I came across as unkind; I apologize for that.

But I still don't follow your logic. If you can't say that a life has begun and exists in the womb because a declaration like that is above your pay grade, then how can you then state that abortion is taking a life?

Is the question unclear?

I apologize if I misread you. Words read and not heard can be taken wrong, easily.

Let's asume Obama is correct and the knowing when life begins is above his paygrade and we believe likewise for ourselves. The position, as I see it, would be best if we were to take the stand that life begins at conception. This is foundationally pro-life. Since, as Obama states this is above his paygrade, and I can accept such a position as his, then why take a position which "might" take a life (abortion - murder) rather than one which might not take a life?

Leave the decision to Him who gives and takes life (Christ), not in our errant hands.

Either it does or does not. If we don't know, the why choose the option which might?

As a position for Christians to take for their own behavior, your suggestion may have validity; this is a matter of conscience, and each person is responsible to his or her own conscience before God. As a position to advocate as the law of the land in a non-theocratic state, I don't think it's acceptable.

Haruo

[Timothy Bonney]

Let's asume Obama is correct and the knowing when life begins is above his paygrade and we believe likewise for ourselves. The position, as I see it, would be best if we were to take the stand that life begins at conception.

Why? Would it be even safer, if you want to put a fence around the Torah so to speak, to then say that all birth control is also wrong because you cannot be 100% sure that a fertilized ovum was not aborted by the pill.

The basis of our respect for human life is the image of God. Not the fact that something is alive. If Christians can't determine when the image of God is present how can we expect legislators to do so when they may or may not even be people of faith to begin with?

[russ]

Thanks for the response, Bill.

I agree with you that abortion might be the taking of a life. And for you to possibly "err" on the side of life is understandable.

But I'm with Haruo when it comes to what we codify in law. For the law, it seems like the onus is on you and like-minded people to show objectively that abortion is the taking of a life.