The pundits have thoroughly dissected the answer that Barak Obama gave to Pastor Rick Warren’s question about abortion at the Saddleback Forum . . . but how many of them were really listening to the question that Warren had actually asked?

Contrary to prevalent accounts, Warren’s remarkably nuanced question did not ask the candidates to identify the point at which human life begins (even though Obama decided to answer as if that had been the actual question).

No, in formulating his question, Warren shrewdly departed from the anticipated conventional script for which Obama – despite his clumsy delivery – had undoubtedly prepared a few talking points.

Warren’s actual question was, “At what point does a baby get human rights?” At first glance, the difference may appear superficial. A closer examination shows otherwise; and, in his response, Obama inadvertently underscored the difference by attempting to cram a square peg into a round hole.

The question of when human life begins and that of when a baby (born or unborn) gets human rights are certainly related; indeed, for John McCain, they appear to be functionally synonymous. But, the record of history is replete with examples of eminent thinkers, long-standing legal codes and entire societies that did not consider human life or personhood (at any age) to be a necessary or sufficient reason for recognizing that someone possesses what we now regard as basic human rights.

And, while Obama may attempt to sidestep the question of when human life begins by addressing it solely as a scientific or theological issue, the question of when we should recognize a baby as possessing human rights is unavoidably a legal issue – placing it directly within Obama’s presumptive bailiwick.

Let us not misconstrue the meaning of Obama’s words: By “above my pay grade,” he undoubtedly meant to imply deference to the Almighty on the question of when human life begins.

While this answer strikes me as merely an attempt to dodge the question, it might at least have qualified as an artful dodge – if it only it had at least addressed the question that Pastor Warren was actually asking him. It didn’t.

Nor did Obama’s answer conceal what he really believes about when a baby gets human rights. We can reasonably infer his views about this from his unshakable commitment to do everything within his power to protect and preserve Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court’s 1973 precedent mandating legalized abortion.

This, at very least, tells us what Obama considers to have been within the pay grade of Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe. In this decision, Blackmun coyly skirted the issue of when human life begins, but showed no such hesitation about deciding when a baby could be recognized as possessing human rights.

In fact, Blackmun went even farther on this in Roe than Pastor Warren’s question dared Obama to venture. Blackmun presumed to determine with specificity (to borrow a few words from Obama’s answer) a point before which any legislative body would be prohibited from granting a baby the sort of legal protection that is due to anyone who possesses basic human rights.

All of this Obama is prepared to defend as unalterably settled precedent. By taking this position long before the Saddleback Forum, he provided his real answer to Pastor Warren’s question long before Warren asked it.

By spouting immaterial talking points instead of answering the question directly, Barak Obama showed a cagey reluctance to take ownership of what manifestly appears to be one of his core convictions. This might be the Saddleback Forum’s most telling revelation.