"Above my paygrade"
 

Huh?

Did they not prep this guy for that question? Surely they knew it was coming. I can see all the Obamaniacs sitting around doing the prep work, and Obama unveils the "above my paygrade" line and they all have a simultaneous orgasm. "That's gold, Jerry, gold."

Well here's something that should be well within in your paygrade: maintaining control of your own nominating covention.

This guy can't even take on the Clintons let alone Akmadigyouseemydog.

He looks like a very, very little man.

That's a soundbite for the ages, right there.

You combine that with his voting record, McCain's going to have one killer (no pun intended) of an October surprise ad to run.

That was certainly not one of his better responses.

It reminded me of a physician going before a peer review on malpractice at one of the hospitals.

When asked about his mistakes, he responded with a trite response, "Well there was only one perfect healer ..."

Thud.

I don't think it is all that bad. I think he meant something along the lines of "that is a question only God can answer." The exact moment that life begins is almost impossible to answer, unless you believe it begins at conception (as McCain now claims). Saying it begins at conception isn't without its own serious political challenges either.

It doesn't sound great, but I think when put in context it isn't outlandish. I wouldn't be surprised if he intended to follow up with "that is something only God knows," particularly given the audience he gave the quote to.

Spin, spin, spin.

Cali, you know what he meant, and I know what he meant, but it was a poor answer either way around, and you know exactly what McCain's 527s are going to do with the soundbite.

The question wasn't "when does life begin?" Rather it was "when does a baby get human rights in your view?" This isn't a theological question but a legal question. Something a former Con Law prof should be able to handle with ease. Obama answered the expected question and whiffed on the actual question. Of course, we all know what he wanted to say and that is that a baby receives full human rights at birth.

Good thing that question wasn't asked of President Monson.

I think President Monson's answer would have been essentially the same as Obama's: "don't know."

So don't criticize Obama too much, when the LDS policy displays the same ambiguity.

Fair?

I noticed that, too. It wasn't a biological question or philosophical one. The way the q was phrased he had an easy out, but he didn't take it.

NOW, LET'S DEAL WITH ABORTION. 40 MILLION

5 ABORTIONS SINCE ROE V. WADE. YOU KNOW, AS A PASTOR I

6 HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS ALL OF THE TIME. ALL OF THE

7 PAIN AND ALL OF THE CONFLICTS. I KNOW THIS IS A VERY

8 COMPLEX ISSUE. 40 MILLION ABORTIONS. AT WHAT POINT

9 DOES A BABY GET HUMAN RIGHTS IN YOUR VIEW?

10 A. WELL, I THINK THAT WHETHER YOU ARE LOOKING AT

11 IT FROM A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OR A SCIENTIFIC

12 PERSPECTIVE, ANSWERING THAT QUESTION WITH SPECIFICITY,

13 YOU KNOW, IS ABOVE MY PAY GRADE. BUT LET ME JUST SPEAK

14 MORE GENERALLY ABOUT THE ISSUE OF ABORTION BECAUSE THIS

15 IS SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY THE COUNTRY WRESTLES WITH. ONE

16 THING THAT I'M ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED OF IS THERE IS A

17 MORAL AND ETHICAL CONTENT TO THIS ISSUE. SO I THINK

18 THAT ANYBODY WHO TRIES TO DENY THE MORAL DIFFICULTIES

19 AND GRAVITY OF THE ABORTION ISSUE I THINK IS NOT PAYING

20 ATTENTION. SO THAT WOULD BE POINT NUMBER ONE.

21 BUT POINT NUMBER TWO, I AM PRO-CHOICE. I

22 BELIEVE IN ROE V. WADE AND COME TO THAT CONCLUSION NOT

23 BECAUSE I'M PRO ABORTION, BUT BECAUSE ULTIMATELY I

24 DON'T THINK WOMEN MAKE THESE DECISIONS CASUALLY. THEY

25 WRESTLE WITH THESE THINGS IN PROFOUND WAYS. IN

1 CONSULTATION WITH THEIR PASTORS OR SPOUSES OR THEIR

2 DOCTORS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. AND SO FOR ME, THE

3 GOAL RIGHT NOW SHOULD BE -- AND THIS IS WHERE I THINK

4 WE CAN FIND COMMON GROUND AND BY THE WAY I HAVE NOW

5 INSERTED THIS INTO THE DEMOCRAT PARTY PLATFORM IS HOW

6 DO WE REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS BECAUSE THE FACT

7 IS THAT ALTHOUGH WE'VE HAD A PRESIDENT WHO IS OPPOSED

8 TO ABORTIONS OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS, ABORTIONS HAVE

9 NOT GONE DOWN.

10 Q. HAVE YOU EVER VOTED TO LIMIT OR REDUCE

11 ABORTIONS?

12 A. I AM IN FAVOR, FOR EXAMPLE, OF LIMITS ON LATE

13 TERM ABORTIONS IF THERE IS AN EXCEPTION FOR THE

14 MOTHER'S HEALTH. NOW FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THOSE

15 WHO, YOU KNOW, ARE PRO LIFE, I THINK THEY WOULD

16 CONSIDER THAT INADEQUATE. AND I RESPECT THEIR VIEWS.

17 I MEAN ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE ALWAYS SAID IS THAT

18 ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT LIFE

19 BEGINS AT CONCEPTION, THEN -- AND YOU ARE CONSISTENT IN

20 THAT BELIEF, THEN I CAN'T ARGUE WITH YOU ON THAT

21 BECAUSE THAT IS A CORE ISSUE OF FAITH FOR YOU.

22 WHAT I CAN DO IS SAY ARE THERE WAYS THAT WE

23 CAN WORK TOGETHER TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNWANTED

24 PREGNANCIES SO THAT WE ACTUALLY ARE REDUCING THE SENSE

25 THAT WOMEN ARE SEEKING OUT ABORTIONS, AND AS AN EXAMPLE

1 OF THAT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT IS

2 HOW DO WE PROVIDE THE RESOURCES THAT ALLOW WOMEN TO

3 MAKE THE CHOICE TO KEEP A CHILD. YOU KNOW, HAVE WE

4 GIVEN THEM THE HEALTH CARE THAT THEY NEED. HAVE WE

5 GIVEN THEM THE SUPPORT SERVICES THAT THEY NEED. HAVE

6 WE GIVEN THEM THE OPTIONS OF ADOPTION THAT ARE

7 NECESSARY. THAT I THINK CAN MAKE A GENUINE DIFFERENCE.

Funny you mention that. I remember last night thinking, his answer would have been a ton better if he'd just said "I have no idea."

Only Obama didn't say "Dunno."

His answer was more like "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, limit unwanted pregnancies. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Roe vs. Wade. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, pro choice. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah etc. etc. etc."

No teleprompter and Obama is lost.

What is the distinction between a baby receiving human rights and when life begins? Under Roe, they are effectively the same thing.

C'mon, this is the great orator, the silver tongued master of motivation. Then when asked to answer a question extemporaneously, a question for which he should have a pat answer, he spits out some blah blah blah and ends with the trite, "its above my pay grade." We're not talking about some trivial question on procedure. We're talking human life.

You want to be President of the United States of American, my friend. Nothing should be above your pay grade. Better he had just said, "I don't know." But that might have been a bit dishonest since he seems to believe that women should have the right to end pregnancies well into the third trimester (or at least he makes no movement to prevent such).

It's a political question for Obama, not a religious one. Hence, a trite political answer.

Apparently Rick Warren was also underwhelmed.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/235/story_23581_1.html

It doesn't seem like such a bad answer to me. Don't get me wrong, I hope Obama loses to McCain, but Obama basically said:

I don't know when life begins. (I agree the expression "above my paygrade" is poorly chosen).

I support Roe v. Wade and the right to an abortion, even late-term if the mother's life is in danger.

We should do what we can to minimize unwanted pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions.

Seems like a pretty decent response and most Americans agree with him on this one.

Interesting read. Thanks for posting.

I thought the vast majority of those getting abortions were doing it to minimize unwanted pregnancies. Also, why would Obama want to reduce the number of abortions? Does he see it as an issue of the health of the mother? Or is he really concerned about unborn children?

Maybe you don't know, but when pro choice people call for a reduction in the number of abortions, I wonder why. Seems like a pretty nifty way to get rid of a problem. What's wrong with it?

maybe like the church, he considers it distasteful, but not the taking of a human life.

Noah, surely you're not trolling are you? Even the most ardent pro-choicers realize that abortion is an incredibly painful decision for most women, and that for most women it's best if the decision never needs to be made. Further, some feminists feel that the very prevalence of abortion is due in part to the fact that women's preventative care needs are not being met. They want to see the numbers drop due to improving quality of life of women of childbearing age. But I imagine you already knew all that.

This is the only aspect of Obama's abortion platform that I agree with him on: we all have a vested interest in reducing the need for abortions in this country, and if we work together toward that end we're a lot more likely to accomplish it than if the lifers and choicers just keep bickering all the time.

Huh? Obama probably thinks that contraception, adoption, or a woman deciding to keep her baby are preferable to abortion. You disagree? You're not one of those guys that thinks birth control is the same thing as abortion, are you?

Just because you believe in the legal right to abortion doesn't mean you think abortion is a good thing. And for the record I am a Libertarian and I think abortion is evil and disgusting. Not sure how I got into this argument.

I think what myboynoah is trying to say is that when the issue is framed in terms of individual choice, then the politician has no right to criticize the choice. When Obama is saying that he wants to reduce the number of abortions, he's being critical of the choice that so many women have fought so hard to protect.

Oh perhaps. So it is concern for the health of the woman, and not for the unborn. Well, at least that's consistent.

But I am curious about why, if it is not a human life, pro choice folks would even concern themselves with it. Why such pain in the process? I suspect they fully understand that there is something wrong with abortion. But I can only assume that something inside them overcomes that feeling, to the point that they don't even want to pass laws that would prevent the aborting of viable fetuses.

I wonder what it is inside them that influences them to move against their better instincts. Otherwise, why such a difficult decision?

I was asking a general question to everyone, not specifically to you. I guess what you wrote generated my questions.

I just think this move to prevent abortions seems inconsistent with the pro choice agenda. If it's such an important issue that it was taken before the Supreme Court, what is wrong with it? Why fight so hard for an issue with which people seem to be so uncomfortable? Is abortion wrong? Or are we just concerned about the health of the women taking advantage of this right? Is it really that big of a health issue that Obama now wants us to decrease the number?

Or is the elephant in the room the unborn, viable child? And nobody really wants to think about that?

These are general questions, not directed at you.

Not in the slightest. He's saying he wishes women didn't find themselves in the position to have to make such a decision. It's an empathetic position. (Obviously he has more empathy for the woman than for the child, but that's another matter.)

I suspect that you are correct. In fact, almost every choicer I have ever met has said, "Well *I* would never have an abortion, but..."

But I don't know how to explain your other point any more clearly. I'm sure there are a few freaks out there that celebrate abortion, that lament that it's on the decline in this country. But most people recognize the fact that abortion is a difficult and painful decision, even for those who consider themselves pro-choice; and the fact that such an obscene number of abortions take place is indicative that the needs of our women are not being met.

So, pretty much everybody agrees that ideally we'd have fewer abortions in this country. Or any country.

Plenty of people who think abortion should be legal also think that abortion for convenience is immoral and the worst possible outcome of a pregnancy.

I think abortion for convenience is disgusting and immoral but because so many people disagree with me I think it should be legal before viability outside the womb (around 20 weeks). There is too large a percentage of society that feels differently from me about abortion and too large a price to pay by forcing women who want abortions underground.

I personally fully support and agree with the Church's instructions to members on when abortion may be considered and I think each couple or the woman should make the decision with their doctor on when the health/safety of the mother is in danger from pregnancy or their child has no chance of survival after birth. Do you want the government involved in authorizing your decision under those circumstances? Not me.

yes, it is. And that's why, I suspect, Obama doesn't like the question "at what point does a fetus obtain human rights?" There's an implicit assumption in that question.

What can a POTUS really do to reduce the number of pregnancies which lead to abortion? Does he have a plan? More sex-ed? Free birth control? Is it a health care issue? I'm really not sure. With about a million abortions a year, I can't see any educational outreach really impacting that number. IMO, it's a squishy position that gives the appearance of empathy without having to really do anything.

yes. it's the health care. He'll improve health care for underprivileged women. That's what he's claiming.

And I agree with your assessment of the POTUS impact on the abortion issue. That's why I no longer let that issue control my vote.

The church has tied itself into a bit of a knot on abortion.

One the one hand, they allow it in the case of rape or incest. On the other hand, the recent press release explaining why gay marriage is wrong called aborted fetuses "lives".

What? "Life" is present in a fetus? Isn't that murder to take an innocent life? Obviously not, because tacit permission is given for rape and incest, should "murder" be desired.

What are we to make of this? For one, the writer(s) of the press release has one opinion, the church another. But beyond that, I think the church is very uncomfortable with theologically labeling women who choose abortion (either as member or non-members) murderers. So, instead, it is basically a "bad thing", with very rough edges when it comes to the church's moral understanding--meaning that there really is no guiding ethical/moral principal in regard to an understanding of the fetus in the church's position.

That is slightly unsatisfying. Again, who comes in with an ethically reasoned position--the Catholic Church. It seems that every area of hot moral dispute, the Catholic Church has a policy and argument. The LDS church does not. According to one writer, as I linked to before, the LDS press release against gay marriage was basically cribbed from Catholic Scholars (and therefore makes a lot more sense to Catholics than Mormons, e.g. marriage/sex is basically solely for reproduction).

Another part of me tells myself that it is ok the church doesn't have an ethical position on the most important moral question of our time--abortion. After all, look at all the crazy, and since rejected, positions taken by apostles and prophets of yester-yore. If not sure, keep your mouth shut. If sure, still keep your mouth shut. If sure and everyone else is sure, keep your mouth shut. These are good policies for religious leaders. Let the people sort it out in their own lives, and look to God instead of Man for answers to these questions.

It is basically worthless to look to the Church Handbook of Instructions (that only a fraction of a percent of male LDS are allowed to read) for deciding an ethical position on abortion. There is none there. So far, it has been about equivalently useful to look to LDS official press releases to come up with a reasoned, ethical position on gay marriage.

We are a good church. We are good at organization, missionary work, and accomplishing tasks. But we are not a particularly thoughtful, philosophical church. We as a people don't produce art, and don't particularly appreciate art. We are a simple people, descended from uneducated pioneers. Ethics/Morality/Philosophy is the luxury of the gilded, not the task of the hand that plants the seeds and thrusts the sickle.

This is good. I'll weigh in. I agree you're too good for most anyone here. We need to figure out how to start a well known blog of alternative Mormon thought. I can play Satan, the foil. The apostate. I'm afraid we may have to recruit Tex. You show a third way between SU and Tex. TD for comic relief.

WHenever my wifed sees me getting carried away with my sense of self worth she always lobs a getnle but effective pin my way thta pops my balloon. You could use that in your life, or at least on this board.

No, you've humbled me horribly today. I was just joshing.

I recall reading a book by P/J. O'Rourke where he compared the naming of things in the east (Athens Georgia) to the things in the west (Red Bluff, AZ) noting that in the East they liked ideas but in the west they had too much to do to linger over ideas. Our church is the church that best represents that idea. We are practical, do not care for pretension and are builders and problem solvers, but we are not great thinkers or philospohers. In fact, we don't trust people that are.

I doubt the first part but sorry I missed the second part.

For the life of me I am having a hard time figuring out why you don't go find a church that will allow for the beliefs you have?

Why are you holding in there hoping the LDS church is going to supposedly come around and see the light? See things the way the world would want the church to see them?

You baffle me with all of your anti chruch rhetoric and yet you say you are going in for a temple recommend interview? I would find it funny if I weren't saddend by the fact of how much disdain you hold for the church.

What could you possibly receive from going to the temple? How could you possibly sit in there with all those "mullahs" and find anything remotely uplifting with all of the animosity you have towards the church?

I am totally serious when I say you need to find a religion that will uplift you and at the same time allow you to profess your political and moral views. they are out there, and you would certainly be happier than kicking against the establishment, that you will never change.

There will always be those who take more pleasure in finding heretics than converts.

Exclusion is a critical component of any belief system. Why else would we have 50,000 protestant denominations?

-

Back to the topic at hand, do the GOP leaders actually care about abortion? It seems to me that, with a few exceptions, they're just using us as a pawn in their efforts to stay electable.

I have a friend who is a former EQ President, RM, and well versed in Mormonism, moreso than most everyone on this site. He is now a Baptist, and he explained how he felt like worship with the Baptists (not Southern Baptist, but liberal Baptist) was so much more enjoyable and meaningful to him. The crux of it was that he no longer felt comfortable among the Saints, but he did feel comfortable around this new group. That was a foreign notion to me. But it's becoming more understandable. No longer attending the LDS church is not necessarily a renunciation of the restoration, but rather an admission that the fellowship of the Saints has become so painful as to not merit any joy. Oliver Cowdery, for example. How hard was it for him to attend and worship knowing that Joseph was secretly bedding women. Now THAT is a challenge. When something is repugnant--can you stick with it. Should you stick with it?

At the very least, now, I would probably judge Oliver Cowdery less harshly.

GOP leaders is an awful broad category. There are certainly some GOP pols who are passionate about the issue, annually sponsoring RTL constitutional Amendments and so on. The Tom Coburn-types. And there are others who pay lip service. In reality, the only way GOP leaders can really influence the abortion debate is through the judiciary where they have had mixed results.

When you point your finger, you have three more pointing right back at you.

Cool huh?

The inclusion in the Dem platform of language to decrease unwanted pregnancies as a way to decrease abortions (they couldn't even bring themselves to support decreasinng abortions outright) is a very blatant attempt to appease what is left of its pro-life faction and hopefully peel off some evangelicals from the GOP. I would say the GOP position is much more genuine, especially in the face of political and legal realities. At practically every turn Repubs try to limit abortion, whether by limiting government money that goes to such or even proposing legislation to limit availability.

If Dems really were serious about "decreasing abortions," they would suggest real measures to do so. They love using the power of government in practically every other area of our lives to affect behavior, yet they are fully hands off in this one.