…are less than unified on the issues of life. The one certainty
there is that the only pro-abortion Republican candidate is now out of
the race, and Rudy Giuliani has been mostly irrelevant to the race for
more than the past month of primaries.

But Republican and pro-life Democratic supporters are all over the
place in their support of the remaining Republican candidates because
of their checkerboard positions on life. More on that later…

For the two remaining Democrats in the race, it’s clear. Kathryn Jean Lopez brings something up over at NRO that I’ve addressed here, and it’s an as yet unanswered concern. Sen. Obama could not even vote to protect infants who survived attempted abortion.

He warned: “Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a
person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other
elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact,
that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections
that would be provided to a . . . a child — a nine-month-old child that
was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was
accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.”

Which, as I’ve said before, is the same argument used not all that
long ago against slaves being recognized as persons. The argument he
poses is that of the slaveowners who declared that such a designation
would require them to grant the protections of the Constitution to this
class of people and would then forbid slavery.

And his father is a black man born in Kenya. Can’t he see the illogic of his position?

We will keep asking these questions, even if those presidential debates ignore them.