None. Zero, zilch, nada.
Notice the actual question and answer:
WARREN: Now let's deal with abortion. 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. You know, as a pastor, I deal with this all the time All of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. 40 million abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?Look for a moment at what Obama says, broken down into points:
OBAMA: Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of it there is a more and ethical content to this issue. So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one. But, point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I am pro-abortion, but because ultimately, I don't think women make these decisions casually. They wrestle with these things in a profound way. In consultation with their pastors or spouses or their doctors and their family members. And so for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where we can find some common ground, and by the way I have now inserted into the Democrat Party platform -- is how do we reduce the number of abortions, because the fact is that abortions over the last eight years have not gone down.
a) I'm not a theologian or a scientist.
b) The country wrestles with abortion from a moral and ethical standpoint.
c) I am pro-choice.
d) I don't think women make "these decisions" casually.
e) We should reduce the number of abortions.
It's glaringly obvious, first of all, that he didn't answer the question in the least; we don't know when Obama thinks a human baby should have rights. In fact, he seems to think that it would take either a theologian or a scientist to answer what is clearly a legal question--but he is a lawyer, so that's terribly disingenuous.
But then look at the rest: standard "personally opposed" boilerplate, only without the personal opposition. But what does any of that actually mean? Why should Obama, the country, women and their various advisers, or anyone else care about abortion? Why should we reduce the number of abortions? Why, indeed, is there even a moral or ethical dimension to abortion?
The only way that a moral or ethical dimension exists in regard to abortion is if we recognize that abortion ends a human life. The only way that women would "wrestle" with this decision is if they're not all that comfortable with the notion of killing their own unborn babies. The only way that pastors would ever have to offer help to women considering abortion is if abortion involves doing something that is immoral in the first place (and woe be to those "Christian" pastors who sheepishly don wolves' clothing and do the devil's work for him by telling women it's fine for them to murder the life that grows inside them).
It's time to start asking a different question, and it's one that I think must be asked:
Senator Obama, you have said that you are pro-choice on abortion, meaning you think it should be legal. You support Roe v. Wade. Yet you believe that there is a "moral dimension" to abortion. Senator, if abortion is not the killing of a human being, why is there any more moral dimension to it than to, say, an appendectomy? If abortion is a "health decision" that only involves a woman, why should women wrestle with it, consult their pastors, and so on? And why do you think it takes a theologian or a scientist to determine at what point a human life is no longer disposable?
Somebody ask him that. Please.