Above my pay grade - Page 2

So let me get this clear. You're contending that the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and hard-core Democrats like Barbara Boxer willingly gave up the fight against a law that could have somehow challenged Roe vs. Wade, and only the efforts of Jedi Master Obama saw through the dark ruse and prevented the catastrophe?

Earliest reference the OED notes is 1981:



As the OED indicates, that's not quite accurate. It's typically used to mean that it's a question that's out of your league or expertise.


The president is not required to make determinations about where life begins. Without any discussion how all of this becomes policy, the question is pointless.

Atrios said it better than I could:

Frank:

Of course they would say there's no major differences. If I were up in front of a judge trying to analogize the facts of a case with the ruling I want with the facts of my case, in order to get the judge to rule in my favor, I'd want to say how similar the two are. The NRL Committee people are savvy in that way because they're doing the same thing. The only difference here is that they're minimizing the differences between the state and federal BAIPA laws in order to point out some sort of inconsistency in Obama's policy stance (or alternately, to point him out as a one-time baby-killer).


I am referring to the state version that contained such language.

You posted three objections that made the state version unacceptable. The NRL letter I posted above definitively answers all three of these talking points that have been raised by the Obama campaign.

In case it's not clear, let me repeat.

1. An amendment to the bill added the neutrality protection you mentioned.
2. The same amendment removed the "live child" reference.
3. The legislation did not duplicate the existing Illinois law, since the existing law left the decision to the discretion of the abortionist.

So why did Obama vote against the bill again?

I understand that you posted a letter from savvy advocates doing their best to make abortion an issue in yet another election. Indeed, it looks like the infanticide meme is another line of attack according to Pat Buchanan.

Among other problems:


"Same thing!"

Quite well thanks. I don't pander to nutjobs nor really desire them as friends. Perhaps nutjobs is too cute a term. Hypocritical and self righteous money-changers is more accurate. Alas, they are unfortunately far more common than not so it's not abnormal at all but very human behavior.

There's a clear difference between Christians that are great witnesses and those that would legislate morality for their own shortcomings. St. Francis of Assisi once said "Preach the Gospel always, when necessary use words."

Note that I'm not one of those, but the kind of Christian that shows up to church for Easter and Christmas. But I can recognize the real deal when I see it.

Obama's position seems more compassionate for both fetus and mother. There should be no need for abortions in the 21st century. And yet those that oppose abortions the most also make it nearly impossible to eliminate. No sexual education. Nothing but abstinence as birth control. No medical advice on modern reproductive options allowed on tax dollars.

These folks set people, children, up to fail to then lord it over them as sinners and 'baby killers" so they can feel better about themselves.

No, I don't care much to win these folks as friends. I don't care how "Godly" they think themselves to be.

Yes, he's running for President. Not Supreme Leader and Grand Ayatollah. Questions of ultimate morality is to a great extent above his pay grade and rests in the hands of the American people as individuals.

Unless folks are of the mind to legislate one God, one religion and one morality for everyone. Then he would be running for Supreme Leader and not President and I would be really annoyed to be living in a theocracy.

Does this theory apply equally to Republicans/conservatives and Democrats/liberals?

What really bothers me here is the misuse of the English language and the very definitions of their word usage.

Like, we already know that the exact same initial set of verbatim questions were not asked of both Barack and McStain.

That there was no "Cone of Silence" (CoS) that McCain was placed into beforehand as was spoken and claimed by the inquisitor.

Now we've all seen how the CoS is supposed to work, both people are present, and then one of the two is placed into the CoS isolated from the rest of the world unable to be heard and unable to listen in. This should be most familiar to McStain as he spent, for the most part, 5.5 years in a CoS while visiting North Vietnam.

These people are extremists and liars and therefore evil. And since McStain has vowed to destroy evil, these extremists should be at the very top of McStain's list of evil things to be destroyed, if/when elected.

Why would it not? We're all human subject to the same foibles and greatness.

Abortion is an issue in almost every U.S. election.
There's something about millions of innocent babies getting killed that concerns some people.

That's why the "Pay Grade" comment is abhorrent. There's almost no one who doesn't have a personal view on the subject. As our line in this thread has shown, Obama has dealt with the nitty gritty details of the abortion industry before. For him to casually claim he doesn't have a personal view on the subject is simply a lie. (And He was just being asked for his personal view.)


I have no doubt that Republican operatives are going to try to throw a lot of mud to see what sticks.
I doubt this issue (or McCain's surprise 'winning' of the forum) will derail Obama's election to president.


So now your position is that he voted against it because doctors were at risk because of 'other proposals' that were bundled with this legislation? Are you sure this time?

Because a few posts up, you were confident that the problem was in the legislation itself.

<RANT>

Its a sad state of affairs in America, when a presidential debate takes place in an evangelical mega church.

Pro-choice means the right to choose. Do not legislate it, educate it. unwanted pregnancies should be avoided not terminated. Learn to use the many birth control methods. Take responsibility for your actions. Abortion must remain legal, for cases of rape, incest and the many medical reasons that can make pregnancy fatal.

Abortion should never be used as a form of birth control.

Again, don't legislate, educate. Sex education and family planning should be required courses in middle school (as that is about the age of pubescence.) of course, the church folk don't want to do that. Can't teach the kids about sex, it might corrupt them. Utter bullshit, a good education about sex and its consequences will help them avoid unwanted pregnancies and thus reduce and maybe eliminate abortions that are not medically necessary.

</RANT>

Also, the Bible is not a textbook.

And he gave it...about his stance on the abortion issue.

Asking when human life starts is a trick question when the only acceptable answer to the crowd is "at conception". What else can he say that requires some long drawn out answer that they can pick apart?

If millions of "babies" are killed in a year then "right to lifers" bear at least as much or even more of the blame as 90% of these can be avoided through education and contraceptives. Which they oppose vehemently.

If human life begins at conception is REALLY McCain's position then he can not ethically be for abortions in the case of rape or incest and probably has to be against birth control pills and IUDs as well.

That would go over well...so in effect he panders to both sides in a dishonest manner.

Heh...this is why I don't fit in either camp comfortably. I can agree with Artman on social issues but disagree vehmently on foreign policy ones. Both sides think I'm the polar opposite.

Social moderate/liberal, fiscal conservative/moderate and hawk. The kind of nutjob that believes in both the NRA and ACLU.

It's not a trick question. It's a question central to the abortion debate.

If you believe human life is only evident and should be protected only when a baby exits the birth canal, you should at least have the guts to stand up and say so.


Right-to-lifers' are happy to have such education, but insist that the state should provide the resources and training to parents, and let them raise their own children with proper values.

The idea that organizations like Planned Parenthood and other stakeholders in the abortion industry should be responsible for the teaching of values to kids is severely warped.

Why don't we just let the cigarette companies teach health classes too?


So Obama's answers are 'nuanced' positions, but McCain's are simply pandering. Got it.

When McCain declares that "life begins at conception" in front of the crowd that wants to hear it, he is most definitely pandering.

He's pandering because we know that a president McCain would never follow that idea to its moral and legal conclusions. Declaring a zygote a human being has implications far beyond being for or against abortion, and attempting to legislate such would be absurd.

Take another look at thing from Atrios Midwinter quoted:


Those aren't far-fetched "gotchas", they are the inevitable, moral and necessary questions engendered by the belief that "life begins at conception."

Unless McCain is prepared to explain how he would address those and any number of thorny complications arising directly out of his professed belief, he is a hypocrite and a panderer of the first order.

"Life begins at conception" is merely an expedient slogan, when used in this way. I would have thought that anyone who truly believes in the idea would be offended by seeing it used to score cheap political points, without any discussion at all of how such a momentous, philosophical concept would be embodied.

Just out of curiosity, what are the costs associated with raising blastocysts that would require child support payments?

Nice picking and choosing.

How about instead discussing whether you can morally support abortions for rape and incest if you believe life begins at conception. Or if you should outlaw IUDs and birth control pills (which can cause spontaneous abortions/miscarriages).

Geez, this must be your first abortion thread.

Evangelicals would prefer that victims of rape or incest carry the babies to term, and then choose the adoption option if the child is unwanted. Many Christians have supported the rape and incest provisions because of the vocal hysterics of pro-choice groups.

Like the lie in which hundreds of back-alley procedures were used an excuse to sanction millions of abortions on demand, the rape and incest provisions are largely used as an excuse not to legislate real safeguards against the child-killing industry. No tax dollars should ever be used to subsidize a procedure that is viewed as murder by such a large segment of the population.

Regarding birth control measures, I'm not an expert on the science of all of them. Since I believe life begins at conception, I would object to anything that causes an abortion, whether surgical or chemical in nature.

Sure it is and your comment illustrates that perfectly. Most folks will agree that by the third trimester when survival is possible then it's a baby.

But not all folks believe human life begins at conception. Where in that in-between area does it occur? That's above my pay grade...and even were it not, I shouldn't be defining it for YOU. That's between you and your beliefs. The converse is true as well...you should not be defining it for me either.

Personally, I have no problems with IUDs and morning after pills...even when I believe that abortion should not be used as a birth control method. Human life begins sometime after that first month or so.

How MUCH past that I couldn't tell you. Nor do I have to. Nor does Obama have to because he probably doesn't know. Even as a personal opinion.


This isn't a moral question but a health question. If you wish to teach your* kids abstinence is the right way that's perfectly fine. As long as they know about all the other ways to prevent STDs and pregnancy. Knowledge of those should not preclude your ability to teach children "values".

By repressing that knowledge ensures that the kids that need that information the most (as in those with less supportive parents) do not get it. THOSE kids might be the sex partners of your kids. Don't pretend that good christian children do not experiment with sex.

It is a lot easier to forgive a transgression that does not come with a baby after 9 months or a STD that lasts a lifetime.


Why? Because they are "selling death"? Or perhaps they feel they are as ethical and moral as you are, just with a different viewpoint. From my perspective they help women who are in a bad spot because they didn't get the support and knowledge needed before sex. That includes sex partners and family members that might believe that contraceptives are a sin.

That sex education should be left to the sexually repressed conservative Christian parents who fear everything and do not trust their ability to show their own children the power of God is equally dubious. They have faith in God but not their parenting ability to say "Hey, even though you CAN use condoms and have pre-marital sex safely, it is better not to do so and it is against Christian teaching"?

I can say with some level of assurance that most pro-choice parents are also not in favor of teenage sex and caution their children not to do so.


How is it nuanced? He said he supports choice and opposes abortions. Those positions are not in opposition.

Unlike the position where one believes that life begins at conception but it's okay to kill the baby anyway because dad was a rapist...

---

* I use your in the generic sense. I don't mean YOU specifically since you may or may not have children.

No one is killing babies. That's an abhorrent lie. Stop lying.


Asking a loaded question is abhorrent, an abomination, and evil.



How does one go about "winning" a essay contest by giving one word answers?

Conception.

Destroy.

One person shows up to take what appears to be an essay test, the other person shows up to answer a multiple choice test with only one choice given for each question, in other words McStain showed up to a singular choice test. Hard to fail that type of black or black test.

Explicit use of the word baby makes it a rhetorical device, a loaded question, and a trick question.

It is in fact an evil question. So why didn't McStain destroy it, as he said he would destroy all that is evil?

It seems to me that the "pay grade" answer was another way of saying, "That's a question for God and I ain't him."

I applaud Obama for saying that, even though he's for a woman's right to choose, he strongly feels we need to reduce the number of abortions.

Both candidates' answers to the question were fine.

I thought this thread was about evil babies.

Honestly, please refrain from using this right wing meme concerning Obama.



McCain uses one, a lot. Haven't been able to find anything to show what Obama scores on usage. I'm sure he does. I've seen countless one-on-one interviews with reporters in backrooms and on stage where he never used one (I've cited many to you, guess you forgot).

I also admit that this wasn't "the messiah's" shining moment too. It was Jeebus territory.

But this teleprompter meme is stupid and tired. Like Obama's opponent, with or without one.

The use of the word baby most certainly makes this a loaded question, either that or it's a rhetorical question if one takes the word baby as defined in strictly literal common dictionary definition terms.

The usage here by the inquisitor is ambiguous, and can't be answered correctly without asking another question, something that I most certainly would have done, but something that Obama could not have done given the circumstances of this "debate."

Aside from the previous points made, the 'Pay Grade' comment was also very bad politics.

It's opened the door for conservatives to have all kinds of fun with Obama's comment.

Oh forget it. This is going nowhere...

The next time you get thoughts like that, go drink some juice.

Conservatives "having fun" with Democratic candidate's comments isn't a result of good or bad politics. It's more akin to the workings of gravity.

Once a Democrat starts second guessing their remarks based on what the echo-chamber might do with them they are doomed, because they would end up limiting themselves to things like "I am here at this time" and "America good."

The evil that we fight is but a shadow of the evil that McStain does.

Evil is in our midst and McStain will destroy all that is evil.

McStain will commit suicide.

Loaded questions contain presuppositions that are false or disputable, which is sort of like begging the question. They're also used to make statements of bias without actually being bold enough to come out with say it (which is a sort of weird paralepsis, I guess).

Here are a few examples:

Given McCain's penchant for asshattery, do you think that he's electable?
Considering Americans' unflagging support for Bush, do you think that Obama stands a chance?

Warren's question:

"at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view"

is indeed loaded, since it assumes that unborn fetuses (feti?) are "babies" that do not "get human rights." The only answer to the question is "babies have human rights," since they do. The status of unborn fetuses is what is in dispute.

If Warren has asked "Should an unborn fetus get human rights," that would have been a different question.



The president deals with policy. Obama was asked a philosophical question. It is one thing to believe that life begins at birth; it is another thing entirely to enact policy based on that belief, which, as Addabox explained, opens up a giant can of worms.

In other words, asking a candidate what he thinks about an issue is different than asking him what policies he would hope to enact about an issue.

You forgot AmericaFreedomEagleJesusChildren.

And yet he didn't give that answer. Had Obama identified the question as loaded or begging the question and tried for clarification I might have actually gained some respect for him.



And that's what he was asked...what he thinks about it. He didn't ask, "Given that life begins at conception, what policies will you push for in regard to human rights for the unborn?"*

Furthermore, understanding what beliefs govern the thinking and, presumably, would govern their policies, proposals and what laws they would support and oppose of someone who is seeking political power is perfectly fair. Every politician has beliefs that govern and drive the policies and proposals that they may be in position to enact or strongly push for. Knowing these beliefs is quite reasonable.


*I would have had respect for him if he had identified that this question was begging the question.

nevermind. I'm still not sure what you're saying.

Huh?

I understand and agree that the two questions (what he thinks about an issue vs. what policies he would hope to enact about an issue) are different and distinct. I said that what he was asked was what he thinks (not what policies he'd enact). Where did I say that the two questions are the same?

Now, I did say (or imply) that what someone thinks/believes about an issue will possibly govern how they will act in matters of policy and law, if given the power. Not always, but that's a third question I suppose. So the two questions, while different and distinct are certainly not unrelated.

Apologies. Blame it on watching Wipeout while responding. My point is that what a political candidate thinks about a particular philosophical issue is about as relevant as asking them their interpretation of Moby Dick. Hell, I'd wager that a candidate's interpretation of Moby Dick would tell you much more.

While people may think that they want a candidate who reflects some specific philosophical position, the real issue if the policy that the candidate would like to see enacted. That may bear little relation to the personal position. What a president thinks and the laws that a president can get passed through congress will rarely be 1:1.

The problem with this issue is that it's become more than just a litmus test. It's because a test that carries embedded within it a heap of loaded questions and implications that no one seems to have considered, and that's why Obama's answer was completely reasonable.

Midwinter (and the other Frank),

Does intent matter at all in the posing of a 'loaded' question?

Do you think Warren meant the question to 'trap' Obama, or do you think he just came at it that way because of his Christian background and pastoral position?

Similarly, do you think that when the questions posed differed slightly, that he did it to favour McCain over Obama, or does it just reflect his inexperience with this kind of journalistic endeavour?