Notre Dame update 5/17, 7:35p EST: Obama's speech

081nd.jpgI was at the Notre Dame Grotto this afternoon watching Fr. Frank Pavone speak to pro-life graduates who refused to attend their commencement honoring radical pro-abortion Barack Obama when I got a call from friend Fran that Obama had begun his speech on the other side of campus.

So I listened to Fr. Pavone with one ear and to Barack Obama with my other ear via earpiece as friend Fran placed her phone by her t.v. Needless to say I felt a tad schizophrenic listening to contrary voices in my head....

Barack Obama's lofty speech can be boiled away in 2 of his statements. The first came after retelling a story from his book, Audacity of Hope, of a doctor who called him out for shrill descriptions of pro-lifers on his Senate campaign website:

obama notre dame commencement.jpg

And I didn't change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my Web site.

That perfectly describes Obama and his anti-life beliefs. He'll still makes anti-life decisions but change his wording to sound nicer.

His other statement gave the real bottom line:

[T]he fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.

Obama was admitting his view on the life issue and our view are irrevocably and diametrically opposed. They're not fixable. The best he could possibly hope is we can agree to disagree, but he knows that is not going to happen.

And that's the fact, which means the fight will never end - until we win or Obama's side kills humans in the world off.

[Obama photo attribution: ABC News]


Comments:

Here is a neat little video clip that not only illustrates the 'devo' preferred way of handling civil disobedience but the callous disregard the 'dead babies are us' crowd have for prenatal children trapped in the uterus with only one way out and their attacker is blocking the way with the instruments of death in his blood stained hands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojOkGSTzxyY

"General, how does a child shot with a 303 Lee/Enfield apply for help?"

How does the prenatal child who is being dismemberd apply for help?

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at May 17, 2009 6:56 PM


So how many STUDENTS actually attended the "alternative service?" Ten? Twenty? How many happily attended the regular service?

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 7:00 PM


Will the Obama plan of free taxpayer funded abortions world-wide really make abortions rare?

Posted by: DefundAbortionGuy at May 17, 2009 7:02 PM


Hi Jill:
I think you've summed Obama's points up very well:

1. He's pro-abortion and he's not going to change. Obama as he often does, will pretend he's open to dialogue but he is not. He will do what he has to, to protect abortion rights, since these are the people who have financed his climb to power.

2. We can never agree on abortion. It is a fight to the death. Only one side will win and there will be no prisoners.

Except we KNOW, that in the end good triumphs. Abortion is not good. It is a demonic evil.
Abortion has been in the shadows of our society for years, before it was ever legalized. Therefore, we know the battle will be a very long one.

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 7:05 PM


So how many STUDENTS actually attended the "alternative service?" Ten? Twenty? How many happily attended the regular service?
Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 7:00 PM

so what?
How many were at the foot of the cross, HA? 3 people. Just THREE people. Mary, John and Mary Magdalene.
How many Christians are there today in the world?

It takes a lot of courage to be counter-cultural. What this proves is that ND is secular university doing a very poor job of educating Catholics. Very few of their graduates were able to discern the evil here and stand against it.
Something Fr. Jenkins and his trustees will be accountable for someday.

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 7:09 PM


Jill,

It seems you are not the only one who caught that bit of unintended 'transparency' on the part of pbho when it comes to changing 'words', but not attitudes and the behaviors they beget.

yor bro ken


Posted by: kbhvac at May 17, 2009 7:10 PM


Angel, that's not what I asked, and as a non-Christian, I don't particularly care about how many people were at the foot of the cross. I want to know how many students were at the "alternative service."

It matters because its a pretty important indication of how many students, at a Catholic university, care about your beliefs or positions. You can cry that the university simply didn't do a good enough job educating all you want, but ultimately, people make up their own minds. You showed them "what abortion looks like" by showing them those ridiculous "truth" trucks and that stupid plane, and they didn't respond. Information about abortion is out there. People aren't dumb. They just don't agree with you.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 7:15 PM


How many were at the foot of the cross, HA? 3 people. Just THREE people.

THANK YOU, angel. I needed to hear that tonight :)

Posted by: Fed Up at May 17, 2009 7:16 PM


I am wondering why it was appropriate for Obama to speak about abortion at this commencement service??

Posted by: Carla at May 17, 2009 7:18 PM


There were students that attended the ceremony that still disagreed with Obama.

Posted by: Carla at May 17, 2009 7:19 PM



What percentage of the German population opposed Hitler? I believe it was only 10%.
That's means the 10% were all wrong and the other 90% of Germans were right.

Yes, numbers definitely determine what is right or wrong.

Posted by: Mary at May 17, 2009 7:22 PM


A simple answer to the question would have sufficed. Ironically, many of the same posters who are discussing numbers have said before that, as the majority of US residents are "Christian," the minority that aren't have few legal rights.

Consistency? Please? Either numbers matter or they don't.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 7:27 PM


Human Abstract asked a valid question at 7 and got no answer, but rather abuse.

Of the senior class, not graduate students, the consensus figures were about 30-40 at the alternative and about 1800 at commencement.
That is quite consistent with the 97% approval and 3% disapproval figures published earlier.

Posted by: Bystander at May 17, 2009 7:29 PM


Bystander, thank you. Do you happen to know if those 30-40 percent actually attended alternative ceremonies, or simply weren't at the commencement? I know in the graduation I attended this morning, about 5 percent didn't attend because they weren't able to be in town, overslept, didn't feel like it....

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 7:32 PM


So how many STUDENTS actually attended the "alternative service?" Ten? Twenty? How many happily attended the regular service?

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 7:00 PM
-----

I'd rather stand with just one who stood fast on their principles that others were more important than their own self, than a multitude that consider themselves first and others of no importance.

The first one is all heart and the second group is all stomach.

Obama also invoked the golden rule, but to him it's only "words" - nothing more.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 17, 2009 7:33 PM


I am wondering why it was appropriate for Obama to speak about abortion at this commencement service??
Posted by: Carla at May 17, 2009 7:18 PM

yes one does wonder?
Maybe he thought that if he didn't address abortion, he would be avoiding the issue?

I think Obama will NEVER be able to leave the issue of abortion behind in his presidency. I think it will continue to be a ball and chain for him.

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 7:34 PM


Amen! That's it in a nutshell: Obama is pro-death, we are pro-life, and they can never be reconciled.

Even though we are unworthy as a sinful nation, may it please our God to give us a godly pro-life President in 2013. I know God was SO pleased by the outpouring of support the past few weeks - both in terms of those who came to ND to protest, as well as to those who financially gave to support the flying of the planes and the posting of the billboards.

Jill, thanks for all the great updates, and I'm looking forward to additional posts on this topic.

Posted by: LauraLoo at May 17, 2009 7:38 PM


angel, rather like torture, human rights abuses and secrecy are Bush's ball and chain?

Chris, I'm not interested in your opinion on who you would rather stand for, or what principles they had. I consider my principles regarding women's rights in general and reproductive rights in specific as some of my most dearly-held principles, but I doubt you'd be interested in standing beside me.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 7:39 PM


He talked about abortion because he had no choice, but this was a major opportunity to once more look "reasonable" on the issue.

My guess is by addressing it directly he avoids the issue about human life with his Pavlovian drooling points. He's hoping most people will be thankful this confrontation is over.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 17, 2009 7:41 PM


HA 7:27PM

You're quite right. Numbers matter or they don't. Perhaps you would like to address 7:22PM post.

Posted by: Mary at May 17, 2009 7:42 PM


HA - Are you an innocent human being?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 17, 2009 7:43 PM


I addressed your 7:22 post, Mary, by saying that either numbers matter or not. Or, of course, some logical mix of the two. Either it doesn't matter that so few students attended the alternative service, or it does. If the former, why doesn't it matter? If the latter, than something is seriously wrong within the pro-life movement.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 7:48 PM


I fail to see why that matters, Chris. Innocence is an entirely subjective, constructed concept that has absolutely no relevance to me, and being a human being is far from unique.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 7:49 PM


HA:

The fact that the majority of the ND graduating student body did not see the ethical dilemma (or alternately, saw it but chose to ignore it), in honoring a man who fully and unequivocally supports abortion and believes babies are a "punishment" is not really surprising. Most people have been inculcated to believe that abortion is a "private" choice, having little or no consequence outside of one's private life.

There may have been many students who did not agree with Obama but went because they were expected to by family, who were pressured to go, or who thought the situation was overblown or who were ambivalent. How many "happily" attended the convocation, we won't know. How many were pressured to attend, we don't know. We do know that many people are very unhappy with what ND has done as evidenced by the feedback the university has received and the withdrawal of ~ 14 million in funds.

In the end it doesn't matter. What matters is "Was it wrong for a Catholic university to honor a man who supports the killing of unborn babies and who views babies as a punishment?"

The answer is unequivocally, YES.
Even if the entire student body showed up for that convocation, along with every professor and all of South Bend, it would not make the answer to this question any different.
There is either a right or a wrong. In this case ND was wrong to do what they did.

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 7:50 PM


In the April 30th issue of the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger offered this telling analysis of the President’s “leadership” style:

Early in the campaign, in January 2007, a New York Times reporter wrote a story about Mr. Obama’s time as president of the Harvard Law Review. It was there, the reporter noted, “he first became a political sensation.”

Here’s why: “Mr. Obama cast himself as an eager listener, sometimes giving warring classmates the impression that he agreed with all of them at once.” Also:

“People had a way

of hearing what they wanted

in Mr. Obama’s words.”

Harvard Law Prof. Charles Ogletree told how Mr. Obama spoke on one contentious issue at the law school, and each side thought he was endorsing their view. Mr. Ogletree said:

“Everyone was nodding,

Oh, he [bho] agrees with me.”
------------------------------------------------------

And every man heard what what he wanted to hear in his own language and agreed with what he believed he had heard, shouting in unison a mindless mantra and a cosmic chant of, 'Yes, we can! Yes, we can!"

pbho is a false prophet of syncretism.

One or the other constituent will prevail but they will never combine to make a new element.

There will always be conflict between the two seeds.

[see Issac and Ismael]

yor bro ken


Posted by: kbhvac at May 17, 2009 7:52 PM


He talked about abortion because he had no choice, but this was a major opportunity to once more look "reasonable" on the issue.

except when you start to read more carefully and you realise that he is anything but reasonable.
And THAT is the scary part about this man.

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 7:53 PM


"Wrong" is an entirely subjective concept, and I'm fairly certain that your concept of "wrong" and mine are two entirely different things. It might have been wrong for you; clearly it was. That's fine, and you had every right to protest. However, I have every right to disagree with you, and unless either of us can objectively prove the point, neither of us are more or less right. .

If it doesn't matter how many people went to the convocation and why they went, why does it matter how many pregnancies are terminated, and for what reason?

Being conditioned to believe that abortion is a private choice (which I happen to agree with) is no more or less being inoculated than believing in any given religion. In both cases, the individual has the opportunity to believe other options; there's really no excuse for a lack of knowledge. Those who believe that abortion is a private choice chose to believe as such, and, despite the best efforts of you and your ilk, chose to continue to believe as such.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 7:56 PM


Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 7:49 PM
------

So I take it you wouldn't object to being shredded to pieces?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 17, 2009 7:57 PM



Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 7:15 PM


"People aren't dumb. They just don't agree with you."

------------------------------------------------------
HA

BRAANNN!

Wrong,

people are stupid

and it has nothing to do with whether they agree of disagree with me or pbho.

Being stupid and being wrong are not the same thing though. Even smart people can be wrong.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at May 17, 2009 7:57 PM


I consider my principles regarding women's rights in general and reproductive rights in specific as some of my most dearly-held principles, but I doubt you'd be interested in standing beside me.
Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 7:39 PM

no because those "principles" involve the killing of an innocent human being.
because those principles leave out the father who has no say in the life or death of his child
because those principles destroy motherhood, the family and society.

We can NEVER endorse your "principles" because they are a lie.

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 7:58 PM


Chris, as a fully conscious, self-aware human, yeah, I'd object -- particularly as I have not done anything to require it.

kbhvac, I maintain, your posts are nigh-incomprehensible. I'm fairly misanthropic, but even I wouldn't generalize all people as stupid. And yes, regardless of intelligence, people can be wrong. Perhaps a better wording would have been: "People aren't uninformed. They just don't agree with you."

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:00 PM


HA,

I made a statement concerning numbers determining what is right or wrong.

Do we judge a moral issue by numbers or the issue itself?

Was Hitler moral because the majority of Germans supported him? Were the minority who opposed him in the wrong?

Posted by: Mary at May 17, 2009 8:02 PM


angel, nicely idealistic, but as i firmly believe that your "principles" entirely disregard the mother's right to her own body at the expense of what is, at best, a potential human, I doubt we'd see eye to eye.

As I said, innocent is an entirely subjective and constructed word that holds no real meaning, but is entirely designed for an emotional response. The father isn't pregnant, so no, he has no say. Motherhood should be a choice, family, again, has no real definition except among social conservatives, and society, frankly, is no concern of mine.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:03 PM


All of you Obama followers are a bunch of drones. Reminds me of the movie "Invasion of The Body Snatchers."

Posted by: heather at May 17, 2009 8:04 PM


"Wrong" is an entirely subjective concept, and I'm fairly certain that your concept of "wrong" and mine are two entirely different things. It might have been wrong for you; clearly it was. That's fine, and you had every right to protest. However, I have every right to disagree with you, and unless either of us can objectively prove the point, neither of us are more or less right.

This is the root of your problem. Once you can understand why something is objectively wrong, you will be ok! :)

Either it is wrong to kill an unborn baby or it is not. It cannot be wrong for me and right for you! This is not a logical way of thinking.

"Being conditioned to believe that abortion is a private choice (which I happen to agree with)"

I'm happy to see that you used the correct word here - "conditioned". Because abortion is NOT a private decision since it involves the destruction of another human person's body. It also involves the destruction of a human being that was made by TWO people. The woman did not make the baby by herself.
Yes you are truly a very "conditioned" person. You should learn to try to think for yourself once in a while. It's so refreshing...:)

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 8:06 PM


Mary, of course the numbers matter. No, you can't judge the morality of an issue, necessarily, by the numbers, but you can absolutely garner insight into the movement and condition of the issue by numbers.

In this case, I didn't use the dearth of graduates who openly disagreed with the choice of speaker to qualify the morality of abortion. Rather, I used it to make a statement about the "health," as it were, of the pro-life movement, particularly in this case.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:07 PM


Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 7:27 PM

A simple answer to the question would have sufficed. Ironically, many of the same posters who are discussing numbers have said before that, as the majority of US residents are "Christian," the minority that aren't have few legal rights.

------------------------------------------------------
HA

We have a constitution that recognizes certain rights without regard to race, religion, gender.

The constitution can be ammended as set forth in the document, or it can be and has been 'massaged' by the United States Supreme Court.

Either way mistakes have been made and after the 'oops' the constitution was changed to reflect the knowledge gained from the mistake.

TRUTH is a majority of ONE.

Might does not make right.

Might dose not change the nature of wrong.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at May 17, 2009 8:09 PM


How am I any more or less conditioned than you, angel? By virtue of the fact that you are "right?" Your moral absolutism is entirely contrary to any sort of subjective view of the world. There isn't any absolute morality in the world: clearly you would admit that its okay to abort in the case of a woman's life? Why is that any less "murder" than any other time?

Shades of grey.

It is right for you to attend church on Sunday. I am not Christian, thus, attending church would be wrong for me. Again, right for me and wrong for you. Following?

Abortion is a private decision as it regards the woman's control over her own body. Nothing is more important than an individual's right to their own body: a fetus is not an individual, not conscious, not self-aware. It thus has no rights to its own body.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:11 PM


HA,

I'm glad we agree then that being in the minority does not necessarily make one on the wrong side of the issue.
As we saw with the Germans, the majority of people can be misled.

Posted by: Mary at May 17, 2009 8:12 PM


angel, nicely idealistic, but as i firmly believe that your "principles" entirely disregard the mother's right to her own body at the expense of what is, at best, a potential human, I doubt we'd see eye to eye.

wrong again. we are not talking about the mother's body. We are talking about the baby's body - the one that is being destroyed. The mother still has rights over her own body but not to the point that they extend over someone else's body. She does not own the body of the unborn baby who is a completely separate biological organism with human DNA and therefore must be human (ever heard of the law of biogenesis).

"Motherhood should be a choice,"

agreed. If you don't want to be a mother, keep your legs closed, honey.

family, again, has no real definition except among social conservatives

wrong again *sigh*. Family has been around for thousands upon thousands of years and it has always been a mother, father and children.
It's not a "conservative" definition. It's the way man has ordered his various societies for millennia.
The fact that you are disinterested in family is of no consequence to the discussion here.

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 8:13 PM


If might does not make right, and truth is a majority of one, why does it matter if more of the U.S. is pro-life or pro-choice?

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:14 PM


Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:00 PM

"kbhvac, I maintain, your posts are nigh-incomprehensible."

-------------------------------------------------------
HA

You are making my point.

I did not say all people were stupid.

I said even smart people can be stupid.

That is not misanthropic. It is a demonstrable fact and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with me.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at May 17, 2009 8:14 PM


There isn't any absolute morality in the world: clearly you would admit that its okay to abort in the case of a woman's life? Why is that any less "murder" than any other time?

you should never assume anything HA.
no it is not morally licit to abort to save a mother's live.
One may treat the mother to directly save her life in a way that leads indirectly to the baby's death.

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 8:17 PM


If abortion didn't kill a fully alive and innocent human being I would have no problem with it.

Posted by: Carla at May 17, 2009 8:18 PM


angel, give me empirical proof that family is and always has been that thing. Show me where a man and a woman living together without children isn't a family. You say I'm wrong, but offer no proof other than your own opinions, which I, frankly, am utterly uninterested in.

An individual's right to his or her own body is the highest right one can possess. If a man is attempting to rape a woman, she has every right to defend herself. If she does not consent or removes consent to the fetus inside her, she has every right to defend herself, and terminate the pregnancy. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, just the same as pregnancy is not consent to parenthood (adoption).

Frankly, I doubt we will ever see eye to eye. I'm uninterested in your opinion, steeped as it is in your religion, and you offer no arguments that aren't based on an absolute morality that I wholly disagree with.

"You're wrong because I say so!" isn't a good rhetorical strategy.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:20 PM


"so what?
How many were at the foot of the cross, HA? 3 people. Just THREE people. Mary, John and Mary Magdalene."

Perfect Angel.

Posted by: Jasper at May 17, 2009 8:20 PM


Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:14 PM

If might does not make right, and truth is a majority of one, why does it matter if more of the U.S. is pro-life or pro-choice?

-----------------------------------------------------

It does not matter in regard to truth or right.

This is not a competitive sport where, when the allotted time has expired, the team with the highest score wins.

We could employ logic and reason to discover the truth and determine how societies arrive at concepts of right and wrong, but that method never fares well for liberal humanists.

Sooner rather than later they resort to emotions rather logic.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at May 17, 2009 8:21 PM


It is right for you to attend church on Sunday. I am not Christian, thus, attending church would be wrong for me. Again, right for me and wrong for you. Following?

wrong again. It is right and good for ALL people on the face of the earth to honor God who is the creator of all.
As a human being you are responsible to learn the truth. Responsibly seeking the truth in all honesty, unhindered, it is possible to come to the knowledge of God. You can reject that truth once you discover it. That is your choice. But the correct choice would be to honor God who made you.

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 8:21 PM


So, then, you are indirectly murdering. Abortion is directly treating the mother in a way that indirectly results in the death of the fetus. The death is a byproduct; it is not the ultimate goal. The goal is the termination of the pregnancy. In the case of a mother's life, the saving of the mother's life is the goal. Both indirectly lead to the death of the fetus.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:23 PM


Abortion is a private decision as it regards the woman's control over her own body. Nothing is more important than an individual's right to their own body: a fetus is not an individual, not conscious, not self-aware. It thus has no rights to its own body.
Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:11 PM

prove that a fetus is not self-aware? Do you absolutely know this? Prove that a fetus is not an individual?
Why does it have no right to it's own body?
Does it have it's own separate body?

And you prove to me that the family is a "socially conservative" construct. The burden of proof is on YOU NOT on me as you were the first to make this claim.

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 8:24 PM


All elective abortions are homicide, though not all abortions are murder.

So Ha when your mom was pregnant with you what species of embryo/fetus was present in her uterus?

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at May 17, 2009 8:25 PM


Ah, angel, again: we will simply not see eye to eye. I have no desire to "come to the knowledge of God." I ate of that fruit and found the taste bitter and useless. I prefer a lack of religion to one that encourages gender disparity and disregards human rights.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:25 PM


HA 8:14PM

Well, the latest Gallup poll says the majority of Americans are pro-life.


What does it matter if more students showed up to hear Obama than went to the alternative ceremony?

"Might" can simply be a large number of misled people, like the mighty German nazi war machine.

Truth as the majority of one, in this case two, could apply to the only two US senators who opposed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which was passed overwhelmingly and gave Lyndon Johnson unlimited power to wage war in Vietnam.
The rest is history.

Posted by: Mary at May 17, 2009 8:29 PM


So, then, you are indirectly murdering. Abortion is directly treating the mother in a way that indirectly results in the death of the fetus. The death is a byproduct; it is not the ultimate goal. The goal is the termination of the pregnancy. In the case of a mother's life, the saving of the mother's life is the goal. Both indirectly lead to the death of the fetus.
Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:23 PM

no again HA.
The direct primary intent of the action is to save the mothers life. The indirect result of the action will be the death of the child.
It is always wrong to act in such a way as to have the intent to kill the baby.
It should be noted that such cases are very very rare and usually modern medicine can save the lives of both mothers.
If abortion were restricted to just this situation there would be few if any abortions. And most mothers are very willing to sacrifice their life for that of their baby. The human heart can indeed be very noble, especially that of a mother.
In fact, it is safe for the mother to now receive chemotherapy after the first trimester.

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 8:30 PM


Families in GENERAL are a social construct. I also believe gender to be a social construct, however, which I doubt you would agree with. As my sources, I cite Judith Butler as well as Simone de Bouvoir (spelling?), both of whom question the biological basis of gender and the definition of family as representative of the patriarchal state of the world after the eighteenth century.

Neurally, a fetus does not have the capacity to be self aware until the third trimester; some studies conclude that the fetus to be in a state of coma until birth, and thus, the fetus does not feel pain or respond thoughtfully to stimulus until that time. It has no right to its own body as it is inhabiting someone else's body: the host body, as it were, is the ultimate arbiter of whether or not it can continue to inhabit said host body. Of course it has a separate body; it is also alive. Both facts are irrelevant.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:30 PM


HA,

Suggest you go have a discussion with abortionist Leroy Carhart and set him straight. He must be too stupid to understand what you so cleary do.

"Later under cross examination from the Attorney General’S counsel, late term abortionist Leroy Carhart stated:

"My intent in every abortion I have ever done is to kill the [human] fetus and terminate the pregnancy."

RCW 9A.32.010 Homicide defined.
Homicide is the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another, death occurring at any time, and is either (1) murder, (2) homicide by abuse, (3) manslaughter, (4) excusable homicide, or (5) justifiable homicide.

RCW 70.58.150"Fetal death," "evidence of life," defined.
A fetal death means any product of conception that shows no evidence of life after complete expulsion or extraction from its mother. The words "evidence of life" include breathing, beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.

RCW 9.02.170 Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter:

"Abortion" means any medical treatment intended to induce the termination of a pregnancy except for the purpose of producing a live birth.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at May 17, 2009 8:32 PM


angel, again. The primary goal of abortion is to terminate the pregnancy. The death of the fetus is an unfortunate result. The intent is not to kill the fetus. The intent is to terminate the pregnancy.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:34 PM


Chris, as a fully conscious, self-aware human, yeah, I'd object -- particularly as I have not done anything to require it.
----

Your innocence? Apparently innocence is not really all that important to you. If it has no meaning for the unborn human being, why should it matter to a born human being. So that's your opinion only. Not good enough.

Self-aware? Prove it without using your physical body (presence).

Self-awareness doesn't require communication to others. You're imposing conditions upon the unborn you yourself were incapable of at that same Level of Development.

So you reject innocence as being morally important, and the two conditions you define for what constitutes a human being you can't quite prove without using your body presence. (Same as the unborn)

Logically, you assume it's okay to use violence to shred an innocent unborn human being (and suspend your responsibility to be humane) yet you wouldn't want to undergo that same violence.

Yet scientifically, both you and the unborn have human flesh & blood and unique DNA. That might be the only way to identify your remains after shredding.

Your presence is the same condition the unborn have, and violent shredding is performed on them.

What you avoid is the humane responsibility to have mercy upon those who are Dependent upon us.

You assume you don't have to be humane. And if we all lived by that assumption, it would not be pretty.


Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 17, 2009 8:34 PM


K, that's one doctor who preforms abortions. He does not, however, speak for every other doctor who does. Of course the fetus is dead. Of course an abortion terminates the pregnancy. The former is a result of the latter, but not necessarily the purpose.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:36 PM


HA

I do believe you are making the case that even smart, highly intelligent people can be uninformed and even stupid.

You are entitled to your opinions but you are not entilted to your 'facts'.

We will scrutinize and examine your opinions and deteremine their validity.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at May 17, 2009 8:38 PM


RCW 9.02.170
Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter:

(1) "Viability" means the point in the pregnancy when, in the judgment of the physician on the particular facts of the case before such physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus's sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.

(2) "Abortion" means any medical treatment intended to induce the termination of a pregnancy except for the purpose of producing a live birth.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at May 17, 2009 8:40 PM


Simone de Beauvoir is a hack. (also please learn to SPELL the names of those who you cite)

... some studies conclude that the fetus to be in a state of coma until birth, and thus, the fetus does not feel pain or respond thoughtfully to stimulus until that time.

oh dear. I think ANYONE who has been a parent can blow this statement out of the water without even citing a scientific study. Not to mention ultrasounds etc.

BTW, gender as a social construct? Please spare me the details......

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 8:40 PM


The primary goal of abortion is to terminate the pregnancy. The death of the fetus is an unfortunate result. The intent is not to kill the fetus. The intent is to terminate the pregnancy.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:34 PM
------

Pregnancy can be terminated by live birth.

Violence is committed against the pre-born with the intent to kill, because it is the object of the violence and the very reason for the pregnancy of the mother.

You'd object - if you were dependent upon someone else and they violently shredded you to a pulp.

Your pseudo-logic has no basis in reality and scientific facts.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 17, 2009 8:41 PM


HA,

That is not my definition. That is the legal defintion from the left coast state of Washington, hardly a bastion of pro-life sentiment.

Leroy Carharts testimony confirms it.

You are not being 'reasonable'.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at May 17, 2009 8:42 PM


angel, again. The primary goal of abortion is to terminate the pregnancy. The death of the fetus is an unfortunate result. The intent is not to kill the fetus. The intent is to terminate the pregnancy.
Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:34 PM

what does the euphemism "terminate the pregnancy" mean HA?

What is a pregnancy?

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 8:42 PM


Innocence and doing something to require it are two entirely different things. I am not leeching nutrients off of anyone; I am not inhabiting a host body. Thus, not requiring it. A born human being has, by virtue of formation of neurological equipment, some concept of self-awareness, regardless of how shallow it is.

Self awareness may be proven by communication to others, regardless of my physical body. Self awareness does not require communication to others, but communication to others does require self awareness. A fetus, again, simply does not have the link cables, as it were, to have any sort of self awareness.

Additionally, even if the fetus is wholly self aware, the fact that it is inhabiting another's body renders any sort of self-awareness irrelevant. Bodily integrity is utmost. I have no responsibility to another fetus: that fetus means nothing to me.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:43 PM


@HA: are you on meds?

When you are asleep HA, are you self aware?

Does this mean you are not a person when asleep? hmmmm....

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 8:47 PM


The former is a result of the latter, but not necessarily the purpose.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:36 PM

----------------------------------------------------

HA

RCW 9.02.170
Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter:

"Abortion" means any medical treatment intended to induce the termination of a pregnancy

except

for the purpose of producing a live birth.

There is only one other purpose to producing a live birht.

Later under cross examination from the Attorney General’S counsel, late term abortionist Leroy Carhart stated:

"My intent in every abortion I have ever done is to kill the [human] fetus and terminate the pregnancy."

Can you honestly say you do not understand that little step of logic?

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at May 17, 2009 8:47 PM


And I believe the writers of the Bible are hacks. Your point? Did you not notice the (spelling?) after the name? I'm unsure as to her name, and don't have her book nearby. Moving in the womb isn't any sort of thoughtful movement: rather, it represents a stimulus response condition. Terminating the pregnancy means exactly that: ending the condition of a fetus being dependent upon you. If that means live birth, a c-section, or an abortion, so be it.

Chris, there is no condition even comparable to pregnancy. It simply does not occur. Pregnancy certainly can be terminated with live birth, and if that is how the woman choses to do so, that's fine and well. The pregnancy is the reason for the abortion.

K, That single pro-choice individual does not represent the entirety of those who hold that opinion: that's similar to saying that the pope represents the whole of Christianity.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:49 PM


HA,

There is only one other alternative purpose to producing a live birth and that is to

produce

a

dead

birth.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at May 17, 2009 8:50 PM


Actually, angel, dreaming and the stages of sleep, particularly alpha waves and REM, do indicate self-awareness.

K, again, you have gathered the testimony of one individual and the definition of one state. If laws do not equate to morality, why are you hell-bent on citing them?

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:51 PM


Who are you HA? I'm Just curious.

Posted by: angele at May 17, 2009 8:52 PM


Hundreds of people attended an outdoor Mass and rally on campus, while students who decided not to attend the commencement went elsewhere on campus for prayer. Students opposing the Obama invitation had urged peaceful protests.

Victor Saenz, a philosophy graduate from Mexicali, Mexico, said attending the ceremony "was something I just couldn't do" because he believed Obama's invitation violated a 2004 statement adopted by U.S. bishops saying Catholic institutions should not honor those who don't adhere to church teachings.

The above is from FoxNews.

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 8:53 PM


Angel, that's really none of your concern, nor is it something I'm comfortable with sharing on this web site, given the atmosphere. That was wholly Saenz's right to skip the ceremony, and such. Its really his concern.

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:55 PM


I didn't hear the beginning of the speech, but what really upset me was that he once again mis-represented the core pro-life belief regarding stem-cell research, which is that we don't oppose scientific research and stem-cell research at all, but rather we oppose any research that destroys human life and/or manipulates the dignity of the human person.

Posted by: Greg at May 17, 2009 8:57 PM


Actually, angel, dreaming and the stages of sleep, particularly alpha waves and REM, do indicate self-awareness.

do you have absolute proof that babies don't dream? Can you provide me with a scientific study that states that the unborn baby is in a coma, has no self-awareness and has no alpha waves or REM sleep? I need actual citations from peer-reviewed science journals so I can review the research myself.
Are you suggesting that all of the unborn child's responses in the womb are reflex?

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 8:57 PM


I have no responsibility to another fetus: that fetus means nothing to me.
Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:43 PM
------

We don't kill innocent human beings who have different levels of development.


A fetus, again, simply does not have the link cables, as it were, to have any sort of self awareness.
-----
You're imposing a conditional test of self-awareness that you cannot pass, and are assuming your own level of development is sufficient. So in the case of the fetus you are discriminating against them due to their level of development, but using your own level of development as a definition of your own humanity.

Nice hypocrisy.

Bodily autonomy with a dependents - does violence to the idea of humane responsibility. The issue is - is it okay to have an exception to violently kill a dependent innocent human being (your own child) and consider that moral, beneficial and humane? That runs in the face of everything we know about dependency.

9 months and putting up for adoption is not the solution because what is desired is the violent destruction of the dependent relationship.

You wouldn't want to be subjected to your own logic and principles - would you?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 17, 2009 8:57 PM


Angel, that's really none of your concern, nor is it something I'm comfortable with sharing on this web site, given the atmosphere. That was wholly Saenz's right to skip the ceremony, and such. Its really his concern.
Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 8:55 PM

the 8:52pm post was NOT mine.
I am not interested in who you are! (:P)

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 8:59 PM


HA,

Read the legal defintion of abortion from the Revised Code of the State of Washington.

It is not the opinion of one person.

It is the deliberated decesion of hundreds of people.

It is also true because it is logical.

If the purpose of an abortion is the termination of pregnancy 'other' than to produce a live birth ,

the only other alternative is to terminate the pregnancy with the purpose to produce a dead birth.

Later under cross examination from the Attorney General’S counsel, late term abortionist Leroy Carhart stated:

"My intent in every abortion I have ever done is to kill the [human] fetus and terminate the pregnancy."

Notice the sequence of events:

1) Kill the human fetus
2) Terminate the pregnancy

Sometimes they are not successful and the abortion does produce the desired intent and the child is born alive and even survives to adulthood.

Google Giana Jesen for a living example

yor bro ken


yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at May 17, 2009 9:00 PM


HA, I apologize if I overstepped a boundary by asking. BTW, I am not Angel who posts regularly. I am Angele. Angele Taylor, nice to semi "meet" you.

Posted by: angele at May 17, 2009 9:00 PM


You're imposing a conditional test of self-awareness that you cannot pass, and are assuming your own level of development is sufficient. So in the case of the fetus you are discriminating against them due to their level of development, but using your own level of development as a definition of your own humanity.

Chris, Sweet!

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 9:01 PM


While it has been nice chatting, I'm off to finish a paper I'm writing and frankly, visiting my partner is more interesting than arguing this topic.

For angel's consideration, I post the links to two papers. The topic is fetal pain, though the necessary neurological development for pain is identical to self-awareness.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/brownbag/brownbag0506/fetalpain.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16269314?dopt=Abstract

Posted by: Human Abstract at May 17, 2009 9:02 PM


yor bro ken
I appreciate your comments and insights....

I was thinking more on Obama's "open hearts and minds" approach and just how would a child feeling the intense pain of the steel drill at the base of his skull boring a hole into his brain for purposes of sucking out his brains... how and where would that child apply for help? By the way, did I accurately describe partial birth abortion or did I not?... Bystander and Human Abstract please tell me.

So lets imagine Hitler standing before the German nation which had somehow, for the sake of argument, discovered the Death camps of Austwitz, Buchenwald, Triblinka, Dachau. Imagine Hitler thinks he can win over the population to the Holocaust of Jews he has just initiated with another eloquent speech but this one given without a teleprompter.

Well, only because of the graphic images we have all seen of the holocaust thru the years would even most pro-abortion folks find themselves disgusted and angered with such words as "lets have open hearts and minds" which our President used today in describing an even greater holocaust than that one 68 years ago.

What a sick and perverted thing this "open hearts and open minds" comment is! Does he even know that this imagery accurately describes what ACTUALLY happens to the babies when their hearts and minds are literally opened... with steel knives and forceps?!


Posted by: Rick at May 17, 2009 9:04 PM


HA,

I am not 'hell bent', though I once was.

You are asserting things which logic, reason, experience contradict.

When you mother was pregnant with you, what species of embryo/fetus was present in her uterus?

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at May 17, 2009 9:05 PM


This never should have happened. Never should have been aloud!

Posted by: heather at May 17, 2009 9:08 PM


angel - I'll be posting another BioSLED article either tomorrow or Tuesday - I tested it out tonight.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 17, 2009 9:09 PM


You're imposing a conditional test of self-awareness that you cannot pass, and are assuming your own level of development is sufficient. So in the case of the fetus you are discriminating against them due to their level of development, but using your own level of development as a definition of your own humanity.

Chris,

I love the way your intellect works and the manner in which you communicate the information.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at May 17, 2009 9:10 PM


You wouldn't want to be subjected to your own logic and principles - would you?

Well said, Chris! What proabort would subject themselves to the same standards they apply to the unborn? They'd have no say if they lived or died. Their mother could execute them at will. They could also be executed for a crime of rape committed by their father.

Posted by: Fed Up at May 17, 2009 9:14 PM


Thank you HA but I have this to burst your bubble:

1. the first paper which co-authored by Eleanor Drey who is the director of an abortion clinic in San Francisco. Drey is also on the staff of The Centre for Reproductive Health Research and Policy which is a decidedly proabortion advocacy group.

Perhaps I need to be more direct: please show me research that is unbiased and which the authors have NO conflict of interest.

Hint: try Dr.Kanwaljeet Anand

anyway, why bring up fetal pain?
I want something that proves to me that the fetus is in a coma as you stated.

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 9:16 PM


I'm thinking Human abstract is somg or a gay guy.
Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 9:09 PM

which would completely explain why this individual is not interested in families.

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 9:17 PM


HA was using two abortion arguments - combining Non-Personhood and Bodily Autonomy.

Here's the link to handle BioSLED Non-personhood arguments:

http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/05/biosled-non-personhood-arguments/

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 17, 2009 9:20 PM


HA: I'm also assuming then that you support the killing of comatose beings? Since by your definition they are no longer human.

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 9:22 PM


Goood night and God bless us all.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at May 17, 2009 9:22 PM


thanks Chris.
I'm off now too.

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 9:26 PM


Ha, no. You've got it all wrong. You could knock someone in the head and murder them while they were unconscious. They may NOT feel any pain, but they will still die!

Posted by: heather at May 17, 2009 9:34 PM


Human Abstract, you're a riot! seriously, are you citing judith butler with a straight face? isn't that a little... well... dated? please read Theory's Empire, research the Sokal hoax, and get some clarity. you're obviously very smart. apply that skeptical talent to the Theory you're waving around. you have me laughing out loud saying on the one hand that 'innocence' is abstract and everything is mere social construction, then arguing that you shouldn't be killed yourself because you're a 'conscious self-aware innocent' person; linking Bush to 'torture' as if 'torture' isn't just a subjective social construction. seems a little, um, iffy. are you being ironic? you dismiss angel (or whoever it was) as absolutist but you? you're... what, exactly? you haven't got much room to maneuver, seems like, because we can just dismiss your answer as mere social construction and pure subjectivism, yeah? in fact, you should probably save us the trouble and dismiss your own answer (indeed, your own 'person') as a purely subjective construction seeking to coerce us, right? honestly.

Posted by: Judiths Butler at May 17, 2009 9:36 PM


JB: very good!

Posted by: angel at May 17, 2009 9:47 PM


After reading this conversation and being involved in others, I'm pretty sure Human Abstract's nonsense is not worth indulging. If his/her basis for arguing continues to be that morality is completely subjective, then nothing productive can come of a debate with him/her. HA will necessarily be full of contradictions and it will only lead to talking in circles, as seen in this comment thread.

Posted by: Janette at May 17, 2009 10:18 PM


Posted by: Carla at May 17, 2009 7:18 PM


I was thinking the SAME thing! Nice graduation speech. Boy! What words of encouragement. No, "You worked hard, you earned it." Just a bunch of garbage.


LOL, maybe he should have said, "Sorry you spent all this money on a degree and you STILL won't be able to get a job tomorrow!

Posted by: Kristen at May 17, 2009 10:22 PM


I just want to say, and I'm sure that my comments won't be posted as I am not agreeing with the point Ms. Stanek makes....perhaps you would make a better point, that would appeal to a wider audience, if you didn't attack the beliefs pro-choicers hold. I believe you would have a much better argument, if you weren't so antagonistic and steeped in your resentment for the President's visit. I can listen and understand a pro-life point of view when it isn't so covered, in such a typical radical conservative rhetoric.

Posted by: Elizabeth at May 17, 2009 11:28 PM


Will someone please tell me if one less child will be wrenched from it's mother's womb tomorrow, or nest week, or next year because of what did or did not happen today at Notre Dame?

Obama just turned abortion from a moral issue into an opinion issue and that with the very help of the one church that took a firm stand against it. He took our collective pro-life face and rubbed it in his personally deposited mountain of crap and we all looked up and just smiled.

What you fail to realize is that today was the equivalent of a Nagasaki or Hiroshima on the pro-life movement. We have been neutered. We have become eunuchs in the battle to protect innocent life.

Until pro-lifers understand what it's going to take to stop this holocaust, nothing will change. To end slavery it took a civil war. Perhaps those in the know, those that pull the strings, sense a change in anti-abortion sentiment and hope this all goes away. Perhaps that is why the pope totally wimped out on this issue. How long did it take this country to get itself involved in WWII?

Face it folks, the writing is on the wall and we need to stop fooling around with this.

We have a madman, abortion obsessed president in power and it seems we pro-lifers are content to be able to just protest while the pro-abort movement gains more and more power and kills more and more children.

In the meantime, using the abortion issue to its full benefit, Barack Obama firms his power base and the militant feminists that support him firm their power base. Remember this, it only takes about a 3,000,000 voter swing to take the presidency and abortion is the difference. Obama and his murderous cohorts are smart enough to know this and he played the Catholic Church like a fiddle.

As I have said before numerous times. Abortion is not about rights, it's about raw political power. It's the football in a football game, it's the baseball in a baseball game. Whoever controls the ball controls the game and right now the bullies have control of the ball. Pro-aborts have had the ball in their court for too long and it's time to take it back by force.

Ask yourselves this question: Are you all truly "pro-life"? If 3,000 five years olds were being murdered every day, how many of you would just be content with holding a "Stop 5 Year Old Murder Now" sign on a Sunday along the route to Notre Dame that the President didn't take and the media didn't see? I mean Nancy Grace would be a basket case more than she is now. How many of you would be content with just showing a sign with a dead 5 year old laying there with a bullet in it's head? Would your actions change? Is abortion murder and if it is, is it the same as killing a five year old or not? Then why in God's name aren't we acting like we really believe it's murder?

It's like we're the Pro-life Stepford Wives in a trance, without a clue on how to get out of this mess. 36 years and 50,000,000....that's 50 million.....that's 50 thousand, thousand children murdered and what do we do, we hold up abortion signs and give speeches and drop names. It's a joke. This is a freaking war.

How many so-called pro-life activists and leaders make a living at this stuff and have become celebrities as a result? It they acted the same way if five year olds were being murdered, we'd be laughing at them and find real leadership to stop the killing.

There is only one way to now resolve this abortion issue and I am sorry to say it will be a civil war or God will act in severe judgment. I don't want it, I don't seek it, but I think it is unavoidable.

Hal, Bystander, Reality, and all you other child murderers....congratulations.....you appear to have won and for now we have been soundly defeated.......

Posted by: HisMan at May 17, 2009 11:50 PM


"I just want to say, and I'm sure that my comments won't be posted as I am not agreeing with the point Ms. Stanek makes....perhaps you would make a better point, that would appeal to a wider audience, if you didn't attack the beliefs pro-choicers hold. I believe you would have a much better argument, if you weren't so antagonistic and steeped in your resentment for the President's visit. I can listen and understand a pro-life point of view when it isn't so covered, in such a typical radical conservative rhetoric.

Posted by: Elizabeth at May 17, 2009 11:28 PM"

---------------------------------
Elizabeth:

I think you are very confused.

Morality is not relative. Abortion is not a Liberal or Conservative issue it is a moral absolute issue. It will always be murder, it will always be wrong.

To state what I just stated is inherently offensive to a pro-abort and there is simply no other way to state it apart from compromising one's values.

This is the issue with you Elizabeth. You're much too willing to compromise. I think it's a weakness and not a virtue and part of your nature. Perhaps that is why you've had trouble in your life.

I know you will be offended by my comments, however, calling a spade a spade is what I do.

You should learn same by first learning what absolute right and wrong is and then making a decision to commit to those values no matter the cost or consequence. To live any other way is misery..

Posted by: HisMan at May 18, 2009 12:01 AM


"Ask yourselves this question: Are you all truly "pro-life"? If 3,000 five years olds were being murdered every day, how many of you would just be content with holding a "Stop 5 Year Old Murder Now" sign on a Sunday along the route to Notre Dame that the President didn't take and the media didn't see? I mean Nancy Grace would be a basket case more than she is now. How many of you would be content with just showing a sign with a dead 5 year old laying there with a bullet in it's head? Would your actions change? Is abortion murder and if it is, is it the same as killing a five year old or not? Then why in God's name aren't we acting like we really believe it's murder?

It's like we're the Pro-life Stepford Wives in a trance, without a clue on how to get out of this mess. 36 years and 50,000,000....that's 50 million.....that's 50 thousand, thousand children murdered and what do we do, we hold up abortion signs and give speeches and drop names. It's a joke. This is a freaking war."

This really begs the question: what the hell are you doing any different from the other pro-lifers that post at this site? Rambling a little more incoherently? I don't think acting totally unhinged, as you do, is going to help your cause.

Posted by: Devo at May 18, 2009 1:42 AM


Just in case there was any confusion... EliZabeth is NOT me... I'm EliSabeth... with an S...

and I agree, HisMan, morality IS NOT relative!

Posted by: Elisabeth at May 18, 2009 1:47 AM


So how many STUDENTS actually attended the "alternative service?" Ten? Twenty? How many happily attended the regular service?

How many Germans happily ignored the stench from the concentration camps in their midst during WWII?

Posted by: Pansy Moss at May 18, 2009 4:19 AM


His Man, I watch Nancy Grace. Do you know if she's pro-life? I always thought she was b/c of her devotion to covering the stories of tot mom killers. Does anyone know?

Posted by: heather at May 18, 2009 5:34 AM


HisMan, don't be stupid. ND does not exactly equal the Catholic Church, for heaven's sake. if you think the Holy Father wimped out, it's because you haven't bothered to read anything he's published or any of his published lectures like the one he gave last year at the Catholic University of America. apparently, you missed Archbishop Burke's address at the National Catholic Prayer event a week or so ago. please pay attention to those kinds of things. in the Church, the Holy Father is not a dictator: please seek to understand the Church before you run it down. as for your pathetic call to civil war, please show us where the Church, under Roman persecution, took up arms to fight a war of political protest against Roman evil: Christianity is not a call to fight in the streets, not even for the unborn—love your enemy, pray for those who persecute you (and others), minister to them, find practical ways to help those who are suffering and stop all this "let's revolt!" nonsense. there is a point at which your righteous anger becomes a thin substitute for Jesus Christ who, in fact, never called you to fist fight or take up arms against your neighbor but called you to love. seems like.

Posted by: Judiths Butler at May 18, 2009 5:34 AM


Pansy Moss 4:19am

Excellent point. And how many US senators stood firm against giving Lyndon Johnson free reign to wage the Vietnam War? Two.

Millions of people were wrong. Two men were right.

Posted by: Mary at May 18, 2009 6:17 AM


Pansy Moss, and Mary, excellent posts.

Posted by: heather at May 18, 2009 6:23 AM


His Man, Please don't take offense to this, but I want to ask you something. We discussed Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyers the other day. Neither one of them ever utter a word about abortion. When you ask everyone to do "their part." THAT SHOULD INCLUDE JOYCE AND JOEL OSTEEN!

Posted by: heather at May 18, 2009 6:31 AM


I mean, why do they stay off of the important issues of abortion and gay marriage? It's their job!

Posted by: heather at May 18, 2009 6:33 AM


I'm surprised no one has picked up on Obama's comment on how we shouldn't let our opinions of people on either side devolve into "caricature". Why is it okay then for his AG Janet Napolitano to do just that when she describes pro-lifers as potential terrorists? What makes it worse is that, when prolifers resort to caricature, it can hurt someone's feelings but when the Obama administration does so, it can get someone arrested?

Posted by: anne marie at May 18, 2009 6:55 AM


anne marei, great point!

Posted by: heather at May 18, 2009 7:24 AM


Judith, another great comment.
You are spot on. Thank you for defending the Holy Father.

Posted by: angel at May 18, 2009 8:11 AM


I know I posted this in an earlier ND update, but it bears repeating.

Notre Dame: "Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It's a way of life that always has been the Notre Dame tradition."
2008 Planned Parenthood Action Fund conference: "On this fundamental issue, I will not yield."

ND: "I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away."
2008 PPFA: "[C]ulture wars are so nineties."

ND: He said he favored "a sensible conscience clause" that would give anti-abortion health care providers the right to refuse to perform the procedure.
2009: Obama overturned conscience regulations set up by Health and Human Services under Bush.

ND: [H]e said those on each side of the debate "can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make.
2008 PPFA: Ridiculed Justice Kennedy's acknowledgement of post-abortion regret in the Gonzales v Carhart decision (which upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion.)

ND: "So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term."
During presidential campaign: Told pro-abortion group RH Reality Check that he opposes government funding for pregnancy resource centers, which (funny enough) provide care and support for women who do carry their child to term. (Adoption and unplanned pregnancy haven't gotten much play yet, but we'll see.)

There are two faces to President Obama. When among pro-lifers, he acknowledges disagreement but emphasizes common ground and assures the crowd of his support for related issues like physician consience and support for pregnant and post-abortive women. Elsewhere, he does exactly the opposite. Is his hypocrisy any worse than that of other politicians? Probably not. But the growing pro-life movement will hold this politician accountable.

http://secularprolife.org

Posted by: Kelsey at May 18, 2009 9:40 AM


Posted by: Elizabeth at May 17, 2009 11:28 PM
------

Elizabeth - a solid deliberative approach would be what? Isn't it debating the beliefs the other side holds?

...perhaps you would make a better point, that would appeal to a wider audience, if you didn't attack the beliefs pro-choicers hold.

Please explain, in your most reasonable manner, how you hold a debate when you don't attack the beliefs the other side holds...because you are currently attacking us with your statement quoted above.

What you are so kindly saying is: SHUT UP!

So Elizabeth, if you're really trying to make headway on this issue, tell us, would you follow your own advice?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 18, 2009 10:17 AM


Hal, Bystander, Reality, and all you other child murderers....congratulations.....you appear to have won and for now we have been soundly defeated.......
Posted by: HisMan at May 17, 2009 11:50 PM

Thanks. I've been trying to tell you this for a couple of years now.

Posted by: Hal at May 18, 2009 10:33 AM


Hal, you won't be a winner on judgement day!

Posted by: heather at May 18, 2009 10:35 AM


I will have to disagree with HisMan. We are not defeated.

Posted by: Carla at May 18, 2009 10:38 AM


Butler:

You're calling me stupid? Do you own a mirror?

Gee, I guess when one sees the Leprechaun and all the priests in the crowd at Notre Dame football games and immediately Martin Luther comes to mind? Give me a fighting Irish break will ya. Notre Dame is the face, the branding of Catholicism and you're denial of that is well, stupid. Why in the hell do you think Obama went there? Oh, perhaps he should have gone to just lowly little St. John Fisher college in NY?

OK, since the pope was directly and intentionally disobeyed then,let's now see what the disciplinary action will be of Fr. Jenkins and the like.

And if you could read, I was not advocating civil war I was stating that this seems like the only thing, based on history, that changes these kinds of things. Further, if you really knew Scripture, you would understand that from the first shedding of innocent blood, i.e., as in Cain, which pollutes the land, God requires the shedding of blood.

So before you stroke yourself with your faux intellectreualism go take a few more courses.

Posted by: HisMan at May 18, 2009 10:44 AM


Hal, you won't be a winner on judgement day!
Posted by: heather at May 18, 2009 10:35 AM

That's the best you got? Judgment day? let the ridiculing begin.

Posted by: Hal at May 18, 2009 10:56 AM


Who's ridiculing you? This will be coming. Hal, you don't believe that you will live forever, do you?

Posted by: heather at May 18, 2009 11:11 AM


Heather, i don't believe I will live forever. I don't believe anyone does. That's why we have to try to enjoy the time we have.

Posted by: Hal at May 18, 2009 11:13 AM


Heather, i don't believe I will live forever. I don't believe anyone does. That's why we have to try to enjoy the time we have.
Posted by: Hal at May 18, 2009 11:13 AM

I'm sorry that you believe that we were made only for this world.
That was never God's plan Hal. You were made, like the rest of us, to enjoy union with him in heaven for all eternity. Nothing on this earth can compare to that.

Posted by: angel at May 18, 2009 11:17 AM


What about your afterlife, Hal? Can you prove to me that there is no God? No Heaven or Hell? Okay. Enjoy life. Life here is but a vapor. Where will you spend your eternal life? In the Lake of Fire, tormented forever and ever and ever? Be my guest.

Posted by: heather at May 18, 2009 11:18 AM


The time to change is now. Staying Pro abortion is a very dangerous game, Hal. Heed my warning. You are NEVER coming back after death. You could have eternal life in heaven though. The "Choice" is yours.

Posted by: heather at May 18, 2009 11:21 AM


Heed my warning. You are NEVER coming back after death. You could have eternal life in heaven though. The "Choice" is yours.
Posted by: heather at May 18, 2009 11:21 AM

No thanks. I'll pass.

Posted by: Hal at May 18, 2009 11:39 AM


okay. that's fine.

Posted by: heather at May 18, 2009 2:43 PM


See, and here is another tenent in Christianity I tend to have a problem with.

Eternal punishment for actions over what, 90 or so years at most?

That somehow justifies MILLENIA of punishment?

No just God would do such a thing. I think a rejected gospel has it right- there will be those who go to hell. But after Judgment Day and the End Times there will be one in heaven who approaches Him and asks why they still burn, and ask for mercy upon their behalf, and He will grant it, for He is a forgiving and merciful God. He sent His only son to die for humanity's faults. It only seems logical that another soul will again ask for His mercy to be bestowed upon man kind, and for it to be granted.

Posted by: Dan at May 18, 2009 8:01 PM


A just God gives life here on earth and an eternity with Him to those that want it and choose and ask Him for it. A just God also gives those that do not choose Him exactly what they want as well. A life here on earth and an eternity without Him.

Posted by: Carla at May 18, 2009 8:09 PM


Is not God then also merciful?

God is indeed merciful, but also just; therefore his justice requires, that sin which is committed against the most high majesty of God, be also punished with extreme, that is, with everlasting punishment of body and soul.

question and answer 11, the Heidelberg Catechism, first published in 1563

Posted by: Jon at May 19, 2009 8:40 AM


HisMan, believe me, i'm a lot less smart than you think; having admitted, then, my own stupidity and my need for more courses (which courses would you recommend, exactly?), I still think your conflation of ND football with the Catholic Church is just, well, stupid. I mean, lay me entirely aside for a moment and focus only on what you keep saying, that ND = the Catholic Church. You're saying a college here in the US is the face of Catholicism. Really? Good lord, man, that's about dumb. How many Catholics are there in the world? What percentage lives in the United States, I wonder? Yet you continue to insist that the Catholic Church is best embodied by... the college of Notre Dame?

Disobedience and disciplinary action? This formulation you're using confirms that you don't understand what the Catholic Church's teaching on the papacy is; it also suggests that despite your mastery of Scripture you're a little too hungry for retribution and bloodshed: I don't know the first thing about you except that you're polluted with sin at least as much as I am, and I suspect we're both worse off than Father Jenkins. Under the circumstances, then, I'd rather be found praying for Father Jenkins' conversion on this issue and asking for mercy for us all.

You're not advocating civil war, just saying it seems like the only option? Listen very closely: you're a complete hypocrite and a moral moron if you believe abortion is murder and the only way to end it is civil war BUT you don't personally advocate civil war. You call yourself "HisMan" but think "the only thing that can change" the culture of death is... civil war? Your "His" and my His aren't the same Hises, then. My His "is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases," and He does it on His timeline, according to His plan, and He does not depend on your civil wars.

I don't intend to get drawn into an argument about who knows scripture better—you or me?—because that's the lowest, most pathetic argument anyone could possibly have. If I "really knew Scripture"? You're serious, aren't you... (sigh)

Posted by: Judiths Butler at May 19, 2009 10:22 AM