April 21, 2008 - The Pennsylvania primary election is tomorrow. Recently, both Democratic presidential candidates took part in a nationally televised “Compassion Forum” at Messiah College near the Pennsylvania state capital of Harrisburg. The purpose of this event was to allow both candidates to discuss what role their faith plays in their positions on important issues. As might be expected, questions on abortion arose to which Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s responses give clear insight into not only into their ignorance of basic biology, but also their ability to reason logically.

For example, Obama has stated publically that he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act, an act that potentially would nullify even modest state restrictions on abortion, such as parental consent for minors or waiting periods. He also opposes a ban on Partial Birth Abortions, a position clearly out of step with the majority of the American public. However, when questioned on abortion, Obama attempted to make himself appear neutral: “Most Americans, I think, recognize that we want to do is avoid, or help people avoid, making this difficult choice. That nobody is pro-abortion - abortions are never a good thing.” If Obama really believed abortions are “never a good thing,â€? then he would not oppose regulations that ensure a woman is fully informed and/or not being pressured into an abortion.

Furthermore, Obama at one point demanded “logical proof” that life begins at fertilization. No bioethicist today denies that human life is a continuum that can be traced back to the beginnings of all life on earth. Certainly, a fertilized ovum is alive when compared to an inanimate object such as a rock. For all his sophistry, Obama is unaware that the question is one of “personhood,” not “life.” But if it is logical proof Obama wants, he merely needs to consider that if he had been aborted, he would not be running for president.

Clinton did not fair much better stating “I believe the potential for life begins at conception.” Aside from being factually wrong for the all the same reasons as Obama, her statement contradicts Roe v. Wade itself. The majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun states: “logically…as long as potential life is involved, the state may assert interests beyond the protection of the mother.” Roe is built upon the assumption that “potential life” does not begin until viability (the point at which the fetus can live outside the womb). If followed through consistently, according to Roe, Clinton’s statement would allow “the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [to] regulate, even proscribe (outlaw) abortion….”

Finally, one might wonder just what exactly is “potential life?” Given that the theory of evolution demands that at one point in earth’s history, non-living things suddenly gave rise to living things (the theory of spontaneous generation), does that not mean that all things are “potential life?” What Clinton (and Obama) probably actually meant to say was that “potential personhood” begins at conception. When dissected, the phrase “potential life” does not even make sense. For all our technology, science still cannot gather the requisite chemicals and create life. Therefore, nothing is “potentially alive.” Something either is alive or it is not.

It is disconcerting to say the least to see candidates for the most powerful office in the world so misinformed on an issue so fundamental as human life itself.