I arrived back home just as John McCain was being introduced and I watched his hour live. I was confused when Sen. McCain spoke about getting "back to the Supreme Court" as I had not heard it referenced in the first 20 minutes of his question and answer session.

It was only until I watched the recorded first hour that I heard the first reference to the Supreme Court. Obviously Mr. McCain was not in a "cone of silence" – so that begs the question of the reverend's veracity.

The second question I have from these debates regards the issue of when does life begin. I'm getting closer to getting my Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Obama was humble and intelligent enough to realize that it truly is "above his paygrade" – it is above everyone's but the Creator.

But I LOVE Mr. McCain's answer. If life begins at conception that means we are all at least 9 months/40 weeks older than our birth certificates. The financial ramifications will be mind-boggling.

So I ask, as far as being eligible for Social Security and Medicare, do we get there earlier than we thought?

Donna Christopher lives in Lucerne.

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites

Comments

Add New Search

smurf - three things... Registered | 08-20-2008 10:18:32 1.: McCain knew the questions beforehand, that was clear. 2.: McCain used to be pro-choice, he's flip-flopped on this important issue. 3. :Obama blew it by giving too careful answers on these kinds of questions, we're talking evangelicals here so deep-thinking isn't going to play well with people who take the bible literally, and Obama was foolish not to realize that. It's just as well, since who wants a bunch of narrow minded religious zealots on their side, let McLame have the wingnuts watching his back.

fastleft - Mr Watkins? Registered | 08-20-2008 12:28:42 I am sure Mr, Watkins will be opening his big mouth on this one! Darrell?

boondoggle - mcbush, mclame, etc Registered | 08-20-2008 15:34:55 John McLame's answers were just too quick, even the pastor noticed this and made a comment. Hearing the questions ahead of time gave his advisors time to frame the answers for him. The problem with the life beginning at conception idea is what if the child is never born due to whatever reason what is its status then? Can he or she sue the doctor for malpractice? Does its estate have to be probated? It raises all kinds of questions that Donna referenced. Great article, keep up the good work.

Donna Christopher - Thanks boondoggle - it Author | 08-20-2008 17:28:27 does raise many issues. I have always wondered about miscarriages. When I was pregnant I was warned that 25% of all pregnancies ended in miscarriage in the first trimester. I do not know if that number has dropped or increased. Will a mother who did not have a viable pregnancy be charged with some type of manslaughter even though she did everything right, good nutrition, exercise and plenty of rest? I've heard folks try to comfort those who miscarry that it was "Gods will". Would that make "God" pro abortion? It's above my "pay grade" to know these answers.

DerBingel - Good points! Registered | 08-21-2008 20:57:09 A lot to ponder. BTW - Read that article about your family's military history in another publication. Good picture of you!

Raphael - And what about Author | 08-23-2008 18:50:10 the mothers whose lifestyle and behavior are not perfect and saintly during their pregnancy, who drink, smoke, eat junk food, watch violent movies, get into intense emotional fights with their boyfriend/husband or anyone else, or/and who do drugs? If the religious right is going to treat an embryo like a person, will the mother be charged for manslaughter if she miscarry, or with attempted murder if the new born is handicapped in any way due to her lifestyle choices, such as doing drugs? If the State claims the right to dictate what a woman can do and not do with an embryo, will it end up claiming pregnant women, and round them up in sanitariums to take over the care of their pregnancies, 1984-big-brother style? In spite of what the right-wing nuts claim, they love authoritarian government, complete with regulations, restrictions and coercion, as long as it does not affect what they call the "free market", which is the freedom to exploit the poor and the weak. They don't like freedom of choice, like abortion, but would rather goose-step under strict dogma and ideology enforced by government.

Only registered users can write comments!