Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[prfsr]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/XRZX_ndZN-g&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/XRZX_ndZN-g&rel=0</a>

WN,
Since you have carried water for the Right in quoting the sound-byte articles, listen to the response once again
and see if there is too much nuance in Obama's reply.

Ignore the last 30 seconds -- it is doctored, stitched and gives away the bias of the uploader of the clip.

[ruchir]

The difference IMO is that of day and night.

Rick Warren asks BHO and Mac THEIR opinion. Not what is prevalent in the scientific community, but their own opinion. Mac has a clear answer, BHO goes into reams of arguments. If some one were to ask them if a glass is half full or half empty, Mac would probably say Half Full, while BHO would again go into rasps of arguments of why this question is above his pay grade because there is no convergence of opinions on this question. Since there is no convergence of opinion, it is difficult for him to form an opinion.

[LosingNow]

WN,
Since you have carried water for the Right in quoting the sound-byte articles, listen to the response once again
and see if there is too much nuance in Obama's reply.

I have carried the water for the Right
---
Anyway, will respond to this post later tonight

[prfsr]

WN,
Since you have carried water for the Right in quoting the sound-byte articles, listen to the response once again
and see if there is too much nuance in Obama's reply.

I have carried the water for the Right
---
Anyway, will respond to this post later tonight

Sorry, apologies if you got offended. I know your motivation is not to support the Right, and you are a Democrat. What I meant was that by pasting these articles, you are propagating the stereotypes of the Right and implicitly helping spread their word.

Again I did not mean to be offensive.

[prfsr]

The difference IMO is that of day and night.

I agree!!!

Rick Warren asks BHO and Mac THEIR opinion. Not what is prevalent in the scientific community, but their own opinion. Mac has a clear answer, BHO goes into reams of arguments. If some one were to ask them if a glass is half full or half empty, Mac would probably say Half Full, while BHO would again go into rasps of arguments of why this question is above his pay grade because there is no convergence of opinions on this question. Since there is no convergence of opinion, it is difficult for him to form an opinion.

This is a loaded question. What is the point of asking one's opinion about a scientific issue? If I ask you "what is your opinion about the correctness of Einstein's general theory of relativity?" how will you answer? With a simple Correct/Incorrect?

I realize that the life question has more important social implications. That does not mean we can reason about what is essentially a very technical question with no technical background whatsoever. However, that is precisely the trap laid by the Right. They WANT to obfuscate issues like global warming and evolution by asking for opinions and ignoring scientific evidence.

What does it matter what Ruchir or CLR feels about evolution (unless they are qualified scientists)? It is either true or not. And no amount of gut feeling and faith will resolve the issue. I feel it is the same with the start of life.

If they had any spine, they would ask instead what they really want to know "Are you going to vote with the Church or against it?"

[LosingNow]

WN,
Since you have carried water for the Right in quoting the sound-byte articles, listen to the response once again
and see if there is too much nuance in Obama's reply.

I have carried the water for the Right
---
Anyway, will respond to this post later tonight

Sorry, apologies if you got offended. I know your motivation is not to support the Right, and you are a Democrat. What I meant was that by pasting these articles, you are propagating the stereotypes of the Right and implicitly helping spread their word.

Again I did not mean to be offensive.

No offense taken... just wanted to understand where that statement came from.

BTW, I am not a Democrat .. I am a Republican who does not want a Republican to be the president again (simply because incompetence cannot and should not be rewarded again and again) .. unfortunately, and this has been my main beef, the Democrats are hell bent on making it difficult for themselves. They refuse to acknowledge political ground realities and like to fly high in ideological stratosphere.

[prfsr]

BTW, I am not a Democrat .. I am a Republican

eww... If I knew this I would have been more offensive!

just kidding

who does not want a Republican to be the president again (simply because incompetence cannot and should not be rewarded again and again) .. unfortunately, and this has been my main beef, the Democrats are hell bent on making it difficult for themselves. They refuse to acknowledge political ground realities and like to fly high in ideological stratosphere.

That is the price of being idealistic   

I would rather have an honest republican as president than a democrat that is not idealistic. The excitement about Obama stems from the fact that he has shown glimpses of hope towards being different. And he is immensely liked/respected abroad. He has also shown more signs of compromise than I like. Perhaps I am a romantic

[LosingNow]

BTW, I am not a Democrat .. I am a Republican

eww... If I knew this I would have been more offensive!

No worries .. you would have behaved like any other democrat

who does not want a Republican to be the president again (simply because incompetence cannot and should not be rewarded again and again) .. unfortunately, and this has been my main beef, the Democrats are hell bent on making it difficult for themselves. They refuse to acknowledge political ground realities and like to fly high in ideological stratosphere.

That is the price of being idealistic   

there is a difference between being an idealist and an ideologue.

I would rather have an honest republican as president than a democrat that is not idealistic. The excitement about Obama stems from the fact that he has shown glimpses of hope towards being different. And he is immensely liked/respected abroad. He has also shown more signs of compromise than I like. Perhaps I am a romantic

Romance is good as fiction and suitable for bed-time and/or in-plane reading.

[prfsr]

WN,
Let's get back to the original point - please view the clip and  tell me what you think - not what voters may think.

[LosingNow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRZX_ndZN-g&feature=related

WN,
Since you have carried water for the Right in quoting the sound-byte articles, listen to the response once again
and see if there is too much nuance in Obama's reply.

Ignore the last 30 seconds -- it is doctored, stitched and gives away the bias of the uploader of the clip.

Reheard the whole thing again and again.... so that I don't miss any nuance.

He did not answer the question asked.. and no there is not too much (depends on what your definition of too much is) nuance in the response.. but since he did not answer the direct question and threw in phrases like "above my pay grade", he came out looking like a waffling, non-confident, evasive person.

The question was "At what point does a baby get Human Rights?". It is a simple question. It is asking about the baby's rights...the question is not yet about mother's rights. Keep this key distinction in mind.

The possible answer to this question in isolation can only be a) at conception, or b) after implantation, or c)after x weeks while in the womb(depending on one's views on which stage of development a fetus can be considered a human being), or d) at or after birth.

The answer McCain gave was an unequivocal "at conception" and went on to describe his pro-life beliefs .. which one can agree or disagree with.. the point is he answered the question.

Obama never answered the question that was asked. He described all these moral, ethical issues, above my pay grade points etc.. and then dived into the "conflict of rights between mother and the baby"...which of course is central to the abortion debate...but he still did not answer the question that was asked. Why can he not answer the question with any of the choices that I have listed above. It was not a "trap" question. He could have answered.. a or b or c or d..given the rationale for his answer and then described the women's rights issues...and the dilemma one faces deciding between a mother's rights vs a baby's rights. That would be absolutely fine. Nuance is needed in describing the dilemma...not in the answer to the question that was asked.
It so happens that this is an important question for Americans.. they need to know what is your starting point for this debate.. and then your reasons for an approach to the debate. You cannot talk about the approach to the debate without describing your starting point.

[prfsr]

I see your PoV but I do not agree.

The question is a nonsensical one related to a real, important question. It is sort of like "are pace bowlers better or spin bowlers better?"
Now the honest answer is "it is a stupid question" and if that answer is disallowed then one can say
(a) pace bowlers because <insert some rationale>
(b) spin bowlers because < insert some rationale>
(c) I cannot give a general answer.

According to you a/b are better because they are more decisive. To me a/b is just nonsense.

I do understand the importance of abortion legislation. The right question is not when the human rights of the baby starts. There will be situations when the mom's human rights are given priority -- why? This is the only legitimate, sanctioned inequity between humans. The only case where legislation says if two human beings are at risk choose this one to live. What is the point to saying the baby has human rights if you agree that under certain circumstances it WILL be denied the right to live? Human beings are registered and can fight for their rights a d are assigned counsel to do so. Some argue that human life starts at conception. If so do embryos have human rights at conception? What about this issue seems simple to you?

Let me repeat what I said to Ruchir

What is the point of asking one's opinion about a scientific issue? If I ask you "what is your opinion about the correctness of Einstein's general theory of relativity?" how will you answer? With a simple Correct/Incorrect?

I realize that the life question has more important social implications. That does not mean we can reason about what is essentially a very technical question with no technical background whatsoever. However, that is precisely the trap laid by the Right. They WANT to obfuscate issues like global warming and evolution by asking for opinions and ignoring scientific evidence.

What does it matter what Ruchir or CLR feels about evolution (unless they are qualified scientists)? It is either true or not. And no amount of gut feeling and faith will resolve the issue. I feel it is the same with the start of life.

What Obama said is that the question is undeniably technical and he was not equipped with the knowledge to answer. No different from
"Do you believe there are other life forms in the universe?" or "Do you believe that our oil reserves will be depleted by 2091?" or "Do you
believe it is possible to design robots that pass the Turing test"?

The more this goes on, the more I am reminded of this story my grandfather used to tell. Two villages are having a contest. The leaders will test each other's intellects and the audience would decide the victor. Leader A asks "Translate to Bengali the expression 'horns of a dilemma'". Leader B answers correctly but his people have no clue whether it is correct. Leader B asks "Translate to Bengali the sentence
'I do not know'". Leader A answers correctly and village B erupts saying "he does not know, we won". Village A cannot argue.

[pipsqueak]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRZX_ndZN-g&feature=related

WN,
Since you have carried water for the Right in quoting the sound-byte articles, listen to the response once again
and see if there is too much nuance in Obama's reply.

Ignore the last 30 seconds -- it is doctored, stitched and gives away the bias of the uploader of the clip.

Reheard the whole thing again and again.... so that I don't miss any nuance.

He did not answer the question asked.. and no there is not too much (depends on what your definition of too much is) nuance in the response.. but since he did not answer the direct question and threw in phrases like "above my pay grade", he came out looking like a waffling, non-confident, evasive person.

The question was "At what point does a baby get Human Rights?". It is a simple question. It is asking about the baby's rights...the question is not yet about mother's rights. Keep this key distinction in mind.

The possible answer to this question in isolation can only be a) at conception, or b) after implantation, or c)after x weeks while in the womb(depending on one's views on which stage of development a fetus can be considered a human being), or d) at or after birth.

The answer McCain gave was an unequivocal "at conception" and went on to describe his pro-life beliefs .. which one can agree or disagree with.. the point is he answered the question.

Obama never answered the question that was asked. He described all these moral, ethical issues, above my pay grade points etc.. and then dived into the "conflict of rights between mother and the baby"...which of course is central to the abortion debate...but he still did not answer the question that was asked. Why can he not answer the question with any of the choices that I have listed above. It was not a "trap" question. He could have answered.. a or b or c or d..given the rationale for his answer and then described the women's rights issues...and the dilemma one faces deciding between a mother's rights vs a baby's rights. That would be absolutely fine. Nuance is needed in describing the dilemma...not in the answer to the question that was asked.
It so happens that this is an important question for Americans.. they need to know what is your starting point for this debate.. and then your reasons for an approach to the debate. You cannot talk about the approach to the debate without describing your starting point.

asking when a baby gets human rights is a dumb question - conception? right, what about all those eggs that are fertilized but not implanted? a lot of birth control pills work that way - even if fertilization takes place, the egg doesn't get implanted coz of the endometrial changes made by the pills.

now, is McCain against the use of birth control pills? (this is a genuine question).

[LosingNow]

I see your PoV but I do not agree.

The question is a nonsensical one related to a real, important question. It is sort of like "are pace bowlers better or spin bowlers better?"
Now the honest answer is "it is a stupid question" and if that answer is disallowed then one can say
(a) pace bowlers because <insert some rationale>
(b) spin bowlers because < insert some rationale>
(c) I cannot give a general answer.

According to you a/b are better because they are more decisive. To me a/b is just nonsense.

I do understand the importance of abortion legislation. The right question is not when the human rights of the baby starts. There will be situations when the mom's human rights are given priority -- why? This is the only legitimate, sanctioned inequity between humans. The only case where legislation says if two human beings are at risk choose this one to live. What is the point to saying the baby has human rights if you agree that under certain circumstances it WILL be denied the right to live? Human beings are registered and can fight for their rights a d are assigned counsel to do so. Some argue that human life starts at conception. If so do embryos have human rights at conception? What about this issue seems simple to you?

Let me repeat what I said to Ruchir

What is the point of asking one's opinion about a scientific issue? If I ask you "what is your opinion about the correctness of Einstein's general theory of relativity?" how will you answer? With a simple Correct/Incorrect?

I realize that the life question has more important social implications. That does not mean we can reason about what is essentially a very technical question with no technical background whatsoever. However, that is precisely the trap laid by the Right. They WANT to obfuscate issues like global warming and evolution by asking for opinions and ignoring scientific evidence.

What does it matter what Ruchir or CLR feels about evolution (unless they are qualified scientists)? It is either true or not. And no amount of gut feeling and faith will resolve the issue. I feel it is the same with the start of life.

What Obama said is that the question is undeniably technical and he was not equipped with the knowledge to answer. No different from
"Do you believe there are other life forms in the universe?" or "Do you believe that our oil reserves will be depleted by 2091?" or "Do you
believe it is possible to design robots that pass the Turing test"?

The more this goes on, the more I am reminded of this story my grandfather used to tell. Two villages are having a contest. The leaders will test each other's intellects and the audience would decide the victor. Leader A asks "Translate to Bengali the expression 'horns of a dilemma'". Leader B answers correctly but his people have no clue whether it is correct. Leader B asks "Translate to Bengali the sentence
'I do not know'". Leader A answers correctly and village B erupts saying "he does not know, we won". Village A cannot argue.

Let me repeat...
"

It so happens that this is an important question for Americans.. they need to know what is your starting point for this debate.. and then your reasons for an approach to the debate.
"

[LosingNow]

what about all those eggs that are fertilized but not implanted? a lot of birth control pills work that way - even if fertilization takes place, the egg doesn't get implanted coz of the endometrial changes made by the pills.

now, is McCain against the use of birth control pills? (this is a genuine question).

I don't know what McCain's stand on birth control pills is.. I am sure one can google and find this out. The catholic church bans birth control pills for exactly this reason.

[pipsqueak]

what about all those eggs that are fertilized but not implanted? a lot of birth control pills work that way - even if fertilization takes place, the egg doesn't get implanted coz of the endometrial changes made by the pills.

now, is McCain against the use of birth control pills? (this is a genuine question).

I don't know what McCain's stand on birth control pills is.. I am sure one can google and find this out. The catholic church bans birth control pills for exactly this reason.

i googled and i found this...


[youtube=425,350]D6IlGXhCUHo[/youtube]

[prfsr]

Let me repeat...
"

It so happens that this is an important question for Americans.. they need to know what is your starting point for this debate.. and then your reasons for an approach to the debate.
"

I understand completely. IMO the right answer - one completely unacceptable from Obama - is "I am sad that the American people are misled into believing this is important - it really is not". If Obama's reasoning is similar to mine, and I see a lot of pointers that it is, and if he is the intellectually honest person he appears to be then the answer he gave is the only one possible while being true to one's self.

Perhaps that makes him unelectable in the eyes of the people you quote so often, and stupid in your eyes for not realizing it. In my eyes it makes him true to his own beliefs. And may be, just may be, you are wrong about the American people. Or may be he injects some doubt in the mind of some that a yes/no answer is perhaps not the only one and in fact not the intelligent one.

[prfsr]

Boy, was McCain evasive and squirming in that video!
And this was neither a question of ethics nor science.

[LosingNow]

What is the point to saying the baby has human rights if you agree that under certain circumstances it WILL be denied the right to live?

Doesn't society give human rights and deny them ..under exceptional circumstances. I understand the baby does not control her actions here.. but the argument is by giving rights ..by default one has to raise exceptions to take "drastic" actions.

If so do embryos have human rights at conception? What about this issue seems simple to you?

of course, the choice of timing of human rights for a baby is not simple. The question is simple because Obama is being asked of his belief (irrespective of what science says) and people are trying to understand if he (who could have the power of changing the country's laws by appointing judges) has the same belief system as them or not on this particular issue.

[LosingNow]

And may be, just may be, you are wrong about the American people.

Ah the romantic in you

Best of luck chasing fantasies.. you are a TRUE democrat

[LosingNow]

what about all those eggs that are fertilized but not implanted? a lot of birth control pills work that way - even if fertilization takes place, the egg doesn't get implanted coz of the endometrial changes made by the pills.

now, is McCain against the use of birth control pills? (this is a genuine question).

I don't know what McCain's stand on birth control pills is.. I am sure one can google and find this out. The catholic church bans birth control pills for exactly this reason.

i googled and i found this...


[youtube=425,350]D6IlGXhCUHo[/youtube]

Good one

[prfsr]

What is the point to saying the baby has human rights if you agree that under certain circumstances it WILL be denied the right to live?

Doesn't society give human rights and deny them ..under exceptional circumstances. I understand the baby does not control her actions here.. but the argument is by giving rights ..by default one has to raise exceptions to take "drastic" actions.

It is a right-wing-myth that abortion is done casually on a widespread basis. Obama points out the same. So abortion is mostly an exception.

There is also a very uncomfortable inference in Freakonomics that I am sure you have read regarding abortion, that raise further food for thought.

If so do embryos have human rights at conception? What about this issue seems simple to you?

of course, the choice of timing of human rights for a baby is not simple. The question is simple because Obama is being asked of his belief (irrespective of what science says) and people are trying to understand if he (who could have the power of changing the country's laws by appointing judges) has the same belief system as them or not on this particular issue.

And this is precisely what is wrong!! The whole premise that the President SHOULD impose *his* will and force legislation on important issues. If that is the concern, the right question is "will you appoint judges who have preconceived notions about abortion?"

[LosingNow]

It is a right-wing-myth that abortion is done casually on a widespread basis. Obama points out the same. So abortion is mostly an exception.

So what comes first .. rights or exception

There is also a very uncomfortable inference in Freakonomics that I am sure you have read regarding abortion, that raise further food for thought.

Yep.. interesting insights on linking reduction in crime with the passing of roe vs wade. Dude, this is a debate on beliefs - and you keep bringing out inconclusive science and debatable facts !!

And this is precisely what is wrong!! The whole premise that the President SHOULD impose *his* will and force legislation on important issues.

Great.. now you are going for a constitutional amendment

If that is the concern, the right question is "will you appoint judges who have preconceived notions about abortion?"

The implicit answer to this question in the political arena is YES. All presidents to date, have followed this dictum.. some have had egg on their faces when their choice has reversed their position ..but it has always been the case. Presidents WILL pander to their base. You are really dreaming if you think that Obama (despite all his rhetoric of "different president") will appoint a pro-life judge to the supreme court!!

[prfsr]

It is a right-wing-myth that abortion is done casually on a widespread basis. Obama points out the same. So abortion is mostly an exception.

So what comes first .. rights or exception

Don't get the question - it is too late at night. All I am saying is that it has been an exception in most cases. It is not that the average Jill said "great, with Roe v Wade passed now I can plan for at least 6 abortions before I have a child". What is this yes/no question about rights that you are imagining? If a woman gets raped and becomes pregnant, does the unborn child have human rights? How is the situation diff from a case where the mother's life is in jeopardy unless the pregnancy is terminated? In both cases the embryo is innocent. Why do we suspend its human rights? Why are these exceptional cases -- only because we give the mother higher priority. Why?

There is also a very uncomfortable inference in Freakonomics that I am sure you have read regarding abortion, that raise further food for thought.

Yep.. interesting insights on linking reduction in crime with the passing of roe vs wade. Dude, this is a debate on beliefs - and you keep bringing out inconclusive science and debatable facts !!

What can I say? I am a scientist.

And this is precisely what is wrong!! The whole premise that the President SHOULD impose *his* will and force legislation on important issues.

Great.. now you are going for a constitutional amendment

Not at all. Note the word "force". Perhaps my understanding of the constitution is faulty, but I do not think the idea is to make the President's gut feeling into law. Otherwise the two houses need not exist.

If that is the concern, the right question is "will you appoint judges who have preconceived notions about abortion?"

The implicit answer to this question in the political arena is YES. All presidents to date, have followed this dictum.. some have had egg on their faces when their choice has reversed their position ..but it has always been the case. Presidents WILL pander to their base. You are really dreaming if you think that Obama (despite all his rhetoric of "different president") will appoint a pro-life judge to the supreme court!!

Why do you take the typical right-wing BS and repeat it like gospel? Judges do NOT have to be pro-life or pro-choice! There is a third possibility called "open to logic/science". Potential candidates for a jury can be disqualified because of preconceived notions, but for judges we will consider only those who have these notions!! This is the for-us-or-against-us doctrine. But let us assume what you are saying is true. Then the question should be "what kind of judges will you appoint"? Yes there is a BIG difference. Just like the difference in asking a PM candidate in India "Do you dislike Pakistanis?" vs "How likely are you to engage in a armed conflict with Pakistan". One can intensely dislike Pakistanis and still be pragmatic about war.

Edit: there are pro-life democrats and pro-choice democrats. How is it possible for Obama to pander to his base? Okay may be you mean majority. Is it not conceivable that Obama may be pro-life but being a shrewd politician he would still pander to his base and vote pro-choice? You cannot on the one hand ask about personal beliefs and in the same breath assume pandering. 
 

[ruchir]

Prfsr --

1. Why is everything, that you don't agree with, right-wing BS? Can I start terming everything I don't agree with as left-wing propa*a?

2. Do you believe in personal responsibility? Don't you think that if a woman does not want a child, she should make sure she doesn't get pregnant? Please don't talk about rapes etc.  here because no one of any belief will deny abortion in these cases or cases where mother's life is in danger. In the case of abortion, you are terminating life because some one made a mistake. So the person who made a mistake gets the easy way out. Would you implement the same logic on all other instances of making mistakes? Like burglary, murder, fraud etc.?

3. When someone has to give a basic definition of something that is alive, the first definition that comes to mind is something that is growing or moving or having some body functions. Would you agree with this definition?

4. Are you saying that one is not supposed to have an opinion on a matter on which scientists don't agree? Take global warming. Scientists are divided on whether it is man made or cyclic (coming every 10/12000 years). So, would it be a wrong question to ask a president contender, his views on global warming? Would you ridicule him if he says he believes the scientists who say it is a cyclic thing, not man made? After all, he is believing the scientists. So, how does it matter if Mac says he believes life starts at conception? There are many doctors who say this. And if you want to depend solely on the views of scientists to find an answer, and if the scientific community is divided, what do you do in that case? Do you do anything about it or not? What you are saying is a recipe of inaction. It is an excuse for not doing anything. An excuse for status quo. I thought BHO wanted a change, not status quo.

5. I don't think you knew at all why this abortion question was asked to BHO and Mac. The big reason behind asking this question was BHO's voting record against giving human rights to infants born alive during a late term abortion (also known as botched abortion). In this case, artificial labor was induced and infant was born. Many times such infants were born alive and were left to die. As IL senator, BHO repeatedly voted against giving these infants human rights because he thought it will be used to supersede Roe v Wade. He has been lying about his voting record on this issue. So this forum was used to understand where he stood. It is a necessary question to ask so that voters can know what their president think about those infants that are born alive but left to die.

6. BTW, you and BHO think that women make abortion decisions very carefully. If you listen to the nurses interviewed on TV, they will tell you that most aborted babies are babies with down syndrome, or to say it crudely they are retarded. This the is side effect of being able to have abortions all willy-nilly for absolutely any reason. Doctors say that these babies could have led the same healthy life that other retards (sorry) lead, but they are now being aborted. So, what we are now going toward is a designer society, where you will only have those kind of babies that you want. Tell me, how it this in any way different from female infanticide in India? In US they don't want retard babies, so they have abortions. In India they don't want girls so they have abortions. Is there any difference?

7. You think ladies don't have whimsical abortions? Have you or anyone known to you watched Oprah? My wife did a few times. One of the show was dedicated to abortions. My wife was shocked to know that most Hollywood leading ladies have had abortions, not for any medical reason but because they happened to get pregnant at the wrong time. Some leading ladies have had abortions as many as 8-10 time!!! This is just the top of the iceberg. Since Row v Wade there has been about 40 million abortions. Are you telling me in each and every case the abortion was required or there was a medical emergency? No sane person will stop an abortion if there is an incident of rape, incest or medical emergency etc. But tell me one thing - does personal responsibility never tops terminating a life? Are we going to terminate life and not force people to be personally responsible so such termination is not required? When it comes to enforcing the laws on stealing or fraud, we force people to be responsible enough to not do it, else they go to jail. When it comes to terminating a life in womb, we lean toward terminating the life but don't force people to be responsible enough. Does that sound fair to you?

8. What is the point to saying the baby has human rights if you agree that under certain circumstances it WILL be denied the right to live? -- What is the point in giving personal freedom to everyone if you agree that under certain circumstances they WILL be denied the right to roam freely in society.

Edit:
9. IMO the right answer - one completely unacceptable from Obama - is "I am sad that the American people are misled into believing this is important - it really is not". -- Who are you or BHO to say which issues are important and which aren't? Who is he to define the importance of an issue? It is for the voter to decide which issue is important. The thing is that in this election, it is after a long long time, there is a situation that nominees of both parties don't have any governing background whatsoever to evaluate them on. In the absence of this very important evaluating criteria, every voter creates his/her own set of criteria to evaluate the nominees on. Is that fair or not? So, who is BHO to say that your criteria is nonsensical because you are evaluating me on my stand on abortions? When a voter evaluates a presidential candidate, he evaluates on how he how that candidate has governed in past. If there is no governing background for evaluation, then the evaluation is done on his policies, his way of thinking, his process of reaching a decision, his personal and professional background, and the most important criteria IMO - does his actions match his words. Everything comes into play if you have no governing background. Everything comes into play because we don't know how else to evaluate you on. So every voters starts picking and choosing issues that are personally most important to them. In BHO's case, abortion question is important because BHO has consistently lied about his voting record on this and his stand on abortion has been quite close to infanticidal.