Andrew Sullivan Attempts To Confuse Issue On Obama's "when do rights begin" Question

I think this should be clarified and even my us pro-lifers that are sort of not getting Pastor Warren exact question down.

Andrew Sullivan in a desperate move is trying to avoid what the question really was!!!

NOTICE HE LEAVES OUT WARREN" QUESTION!! (Update link fixed)

"At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" was the question!!!

Douthat over at the Atlantic hits Obama and Sullivan right between the eyes on this

Above His Pay Grade?
18 Aug 2008 10:56 amAndrew tries to defend Obama's response to Rick Warren's abortion question at the Saddleback Forum by suggesting that that the Democratic nominee was being asked about ensoulment, or the nature of conception. But Warren, to his credit, didn't pose a metaphysical question, or a biological one. He asked a legal question: "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?"

Obama tried to dodge by saying that from a "theological perspective" or a "scientific perspective" the issue is "above his pay grade." But Warren asked a more narrow question, and one that any politician who votes on abortion laws should be able to answer. And of course, as a supporter of Roe and Casey, Obama does have an answer: He thinks that a baby acquires rights when it's born - well, perhaps depending on how and why it happens to be born - and lacks them at every juncture before birth. He just didn't want to come out and say it.

This is very important to hit home. We see the Obama viewpoint come into frightening Clarity in his opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in Illinois when he said:

O’MALLEY: Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the — the way children are treated following their birth under these circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a — a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States.


OBAMA: Well, it turned out — that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman’s right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your — you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it’ll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child. Then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as — as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won’t make any difference.

I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I — I won’t, as I said, belabor the point. I think it’s important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and — and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a — a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We’re going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I’ll be voting Present.

Obama is again talking about not giving a live breathing child outside the wombs rights. This level of logic should frighten anyone.

So despite attempts to throw everything at the wall and talk of Calvinism and Gnosticism people need to realize that all Social Catholic Justice Issue and Human Rights issues (even those championed by the most Progressive of Democrats will go nowhere in the this culture if that is the standard. Call it Dualism if you want but such a standard makes none of us safe. Especially the weak and the powerless. Again as I have said repeatly on this blog if I was a member of the very fast aging Baby boomer generation I would be scared to death.