One fact drawn out by the recent Saddleback Civil Forum, albeit ironically, is that abortion numbers and rates in the United States have been in decline since 1989. (See the presentation here and the US News & World Report story here.) While it is frustrating that Roe vs. Wade continues to stand, it is encouraging that rates have gone down and continue to slowly decline.
One could speculate as to why this is: Perhaps it is a consequence of Presidential Executive Orders that have attempted to keep the federal government from paying for abortions. Perhaps it is the promotion of abstinence among teens. Perhaps it is the ongoing national debate that is having some effect on our culture's perspective on abortion. Rates of unintended pregnancy (nearly half of all pregnancies!) have "stagnated over the last decade" (source), though variations among subgroups could show increasing rates among people less likely to pursue abortion and decreasing rates among others. Nonetheless, 1.6 million human lives—20 percent of pregancies—are extinguished each year in this country by means of abortion.
Rick Warren asked the two major candidates for President, "When does a baby get human rights?" as shown in the following video:
(You can stop the video at 3:40 as at that point the video has already presented the two candidates' responses in full. See also the full text transcripts. Or watch other video from the event.)
Their answers:
Barack Obama: "Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."
John McCain: "At the moment of conception."
Comments
I like the video
Tue, 2008-08-19 12:39 — Your Fiancee (not verified)Thanks for posting this, honey. It's very revealing. Interesting how Obama stumbles over and over upon his words, while McCain is very concise and sure. It shows who's taken a hard stance on an issue that is so controversial within our country, and whether it be a positive or negative stance, a hard stance is better than none. Good stuff, thanks for posting it! I think I'll look at more of those videos...
Maybe I'm just a little more
Tue, 2008-08-19 20:13 — Angela Danae (not verified)Maybe I'm just a little more sensitive to the issue since I am experiencing the development and growth of my own child still inside of me. I was pretty disgusted by Obama's response. He seemed to just be dancing around the question without any intention of revealing his true stand on the issue. Thanks so much for sharing the video highlights! Though I wouldn't necessarily say that the responses from the forum prompts have made my voting decision any easier, it was an informative and intriguing opportunity to learn more about the individuals who are in the running for the presidency.
You're right
Tue, 2008-08-19 20:56 — pdbI agree; Obama definitely dodged the question. What is more, he dodged it as a scientific and theological question whereas it was posed to him as a legal question about rights. I find it odd that a legal question would be "beyond his pay grade". Obama went to Harvard Law School, was president of Harvard Law Review, taught for several years at University of Chicago Law School. This doesn't qualify him to speak to a legal question? To be fair, the legal question does depend upon the underlying scientific and theological data, but surely a man of his intellectual status could have better articulated a position. He was, after all, asked what he thinks, and everyone, no matter their pay grade, is entitled to an opinion.
His further discussion seemed to presume that the question as to the legal status of the unborn--or even infants--is irrelevant since he avoided it altogether and spoke of the care that women give to making a decision about abortion. Even his dodge wasn't very good, though, since it implies that he does not have the experience or the faculties to make a determination about the legal status of young humans. By doing so, he plays right into the primary weakness he is accused of: that of being relatively untested and inexperienced.