THAT SEEKS BACKWARD LOOKING 
TODAY.
WHY DO YOU NOT SEE RAPE AND 
IN
INCEST AS POTENTIAL CARVE-OUTS?
>> I THINK BOTH OF THOSE 
INSTANCES ARE HORRIFYING.
THEY'RE EXTREMELY RARE.
BUT ANY TIME IT HAPPENS IT'S 
HORRIFYING AND A TRAGEDY.
I BELIEVE THAT ALL HUMAN LIFE IS
WORTHY OF PROTECTION.
I PERSONALLY BELIEVE YOU DO NOT 
CORRECT ONE TR TRAGEDY WITH A 
SECOND TRAGEDY.
I BELIEVE ALL HUMAN LIFE IS 
WORTHY OF THE PROTECTION OF OUR 
LAWS.
I RECOGNIZE THIS IS A TOUGH 
QUESTION.
IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT QUESTION.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BELIEVE ME, I DO.
BY THE SAME TOKEN IF I HAVE TO 
WEIGH THE TWO EQUITIES HERE, I'M
ALWAYS GOING TO ERR ON THE SIDE 
OF LIFE.
I THINK THAT'S A TIMELESS 
PRINCIPLE.
CERTAINLY OUR ECONOMY HAS 
EVOLVED.
BUT THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE IS A
TIMELESS PRINCIPLE.
IT'S TRUE NOW, IT'S TRUE BEFORE 
AND IT WILL BE TRUE IN THE 
FUTURE.
>> YOU SAY IT'S TIMELESS BECAUSE
AS YOU KNOW CULTURE MORE RAYS IN
THIS COUNTRY ARE NOT IN STEP 
WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING RIGHT 
NOW.
YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT?
>> THE VALUE OF LIFE IS 
TIMELESS.
THE IDEA THAT A HUMAN LIFE IS 
WORTHY OF THE PROTECTION OF OUR 
LAWS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT 
OVER TIME ANYBODY SHOULD EVOLVE 
ON.
>> THE IDEA IS YOU'RE 
DECIDING -- 
>> THE IDEA THAT HUMAN LIFE IS 
WORTHY OF PROTECTION -- 
>> I KNOW, BUT YOU'RE DECIDING 
WHEN IT IS HUMAN LIFE.
WHEN YOU'RE LOOK -- 
>> LET ME CORRECT YOU.
SCIENCE HAS.
ABSOLUTELY IT HAS.
SCIENCE HAS CONCLUDED, 
ABSOLUTELY IT HAS.
WHAT ELSE CAN IT BE?
IT CANNOT TURN INTO AN ANIMAL.
>> NO.
YOU KNOW THE -- LOOK, OF COURSE,
I UNDERSTAND THE LAW BUT IT'S A 
LITTLE TOO SIMPLE.
SENATOR, I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT 
THAT'S OVERSIMPLIFYING.
THIS IS A PRESENTED ARGUMENT OF 
SCIENCE.
IT HAS A DNA MAP.
SO DOES A PLANT.
IT'S ABOUT WHEN IT BECOMES A 
HUMAN BEING.
I'M NOT SAYING WHAT I THINK IN 
ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
THAT'S NOT MY POSITION.
DON'T YOU THINK WHEN YOU WANT TO
BE A LEADER OF THE FUTURE, 
THAT'S A QUESTION THAT DESERVES 
AN ANSWERS THAT DEFINITIVE 
BEYOND YOUR FAITH.
>> AT CONCEPTION.
>> THAT'S YOUR FAITH.
THAT'S NOT SCIENCE. 
>> NO, IT ISN'T.
THAT'S SCIENCE. 
>> WE'LL HAVE SCIENTISTS ON THE 
SHOW ALL MORNING WHO WILL SAY WE
CANNOT SAY IT IS DEFINITELY 
HUMAN LIFE AT CONCEPTION.
IT'S MORE FAITH THAN SCIENCE. 
>> THEY CAN'T SAY IT'S HUMAN 
LIFE.
WHAT WOULD IT BECOME THEN?
A CAT?
>> WHEN IT IS AN ACTUAL HUMAN 
BEING.
I'M NOT SAYING WHAT MY POSITION 
IS ON IT.
I AM ALSO A CATHOLIC. 
>> I CAN TELL YOU THAT EVERY 
SINGLE ONE OF US STARTED AT THAT
SAME STAGE, THAT IT CAN'T BECOME
ANYTHING OTHER THAN A HUMAN 
BEING. 
>> BUT IT'S ABOUT SCIENCE. 
>> IT'S NOT UP TO POLITICIANS 
TTO
DECIDE THAT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW
THIS LIFE TO PROGRESS AND THIS 
LIFE NOT TO.
>> NOT RIGHT AWAY.
I'M NOT ARGUING -- 
>> DO YOU REALLY WANT TO HAVE 
GOVERNMENT IN THE POSITION OF 
DECIDING WHAT'S A HUMAN LIFE AND
WHAT'S NOT?
>> NO, I DON'T.
I'M SAYING -- YOU'RE OVER 
TALKING THE QUESTION.
THAT'S YOUR RIGHT OF TACTIC.
BUT WHEN IT BEGINS SHOULD NOT BE
A FOCUS OF FAITH OR SUGGESTION.
IT SHOULD BE OF SCIENCE JUST 
LIKE WE DID WHEN ONE LIFE ENDS.
WE USED TO HAVE THESE SAME 
ARGUMENTS 25, 30 YEARS AGO.
YOU HAD SCIENTISTS COME TOGETHER
AND TALK ABOUT THE END OF BRAIN 
ACTIVITY AND THE END OF LIFE.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT DESERVES 
AN ANSWER THAT GOES BEYOND 
FAITH.
THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.
NOT A SUGGESTION TO THE ANSWER 
TO THE QUESTION. 
>> LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING.
I'M HAPPY THAT MY FAITH 
INFLUENCES MY POLITICAL 
POSITION.
MY FAITH TEACHES ME TO CARE FOR 
THE NEEDY, MY FAITH TEACHES ME 
TO RESPECT AND LOVE EVEN MY 
ENEMIES.
PEOPLE SHOULD HOPE THAT
