Obama digs deeper on 'pay grade' gaffe

For a topic the mainstream media, liberals and pollsters keep saying no one cares about, the abortion issue sure has been getting a lot of attention lately – have you noticed?

But I digress.

On ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday, Barack Obama tried to undo the damage he inflicted on himself at the Aug. 16 Saddleback Showdown with his now infamous "above my pay grade" response to Rick Warren's question, "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?"

But Obama hadn't learned. He tried once again to redirect the clearly constitutionally based question into something esoteric and religious, and therefore unsolvable:

Obama: "I mean, what I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into …"

TRENDING: Unjustified Bragging

Stephanopoulos: "It goes back to Augustine."

Obama: "It does. It's a pretty tough question. And so, all I meant to communicate was that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions. What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, that it's one that families struggle with all the time, and that in wrestling with those issues, I don't think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions."

Warren clearly had not asked, "When does a baby get a soul?"

Nevertheless, Obama continued to feign ignorance, which begged the next question Stephanopoulos didn't ask: Why so avidly support abortion if you're not sure it may kill innocent human souls?

And what did Obama mean by "abortion is a moral issue"? This begged the next question Stephanopoulos didn't ask, simply, "Why?" What is it about abortion that makes it a moral issue?

And if Obama admits abortion is either moral or immoral, which does he think it is? He must think it's wrong because he feigned the desire to reduce them (although every action he has ever taken or plans only increases them).

So Obama makes less and less sense as he supports abortion with every political sinew in his body while claiming fuzziness and angst about whether it's a what or a who being aborted.

But back to those human rights.

Thirty-five years ago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in his Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned every state law restricting abortion in America:

The appellee ... argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment. ... If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.

Obama and the Democrat Party frequently pound conservatives for being Neanderthals – on global warming, creationism, human embryo experimentation – you name it.

Meanwhile, they ignore the irrefutable science on human biology. Science and medicine agree human life begins at conception. Thirty-five years ago, one could not watch the miracle of human fertilization under a microscope or view intrauterine life via 4D ultrasound.

Were personhood to be an issue before the U.S. Supreme Court today, as Blackmun stated, the other side's argument would "collapse."

This is why Obama et al. keep trying to change the debate.

Because only an idiot would say that what you get when fertilizing a human egg with a human sperm is a hamster or milkweed pod.

I don't know what to call the person who claims not to have a clue.