Catholic war over Obama escalates

From the Associated Press, October 18, the dispute between the Catholic right and left is growing sharper...

Denver Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput labeled Barack Obama the "most committed" abortion-rights candidate from a major party in 35 years while accusing a Catholic Obama ally and other Democratic-friendly Catholic groups of doing a "disservice to the church."...

Read the rest of the story on page 2. I love Chaput. Here's a great line from later in the story:

"To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse."

"Or worse." Those words would make me nervous if I were on the Catholic left, implying purposeful attempts to mislead the flock, which renders harsher consequences.

Meanwhile, click here to view Catholics United's deceptive mailer mentioned near the end of the AP article. Here's the front...

catholics united.jpg

Chaput, one of the nation's most politically outspoken Catholic prelates, delivered the remarks Friday night at a dinner of a Catholic women's group.

His comments were among the sharpest in a debate over abortion and Catholic political responsibility in a campaign in which Catholics represent a key swing vote.

While Chaput has won praise from traditionalist Catholics for stressing opposition to abortion as a foundational voting issue, voices on the Catholic left have sought to apply church teachings to war, poverty, the environment and other issues.

Although the Catholic left is not new, several advocacy groups have either formed or ramped up activities since 2004. Partly, their efforts are a response to attention given to the pro-abortion rights stance of Democrat John Kerry, a Catholic who was criticized by a few bishops who suggested he should be denied or refrain from Communion.

Chaput, without getting into much detail, called Obama the "most committed" abortion-rights major-party presidential candidate since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion in 1973.

"To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse," Chaput said according to his prepared remarks, titled "Little Murders."

Mark Linton, the Obama campaign's Catholic outreach coordinator, said in a statement Saturday that Obama is "proud to have the support of so many committed Catholics who are hungry for real change after 8 years of failed policies. He has offered Americans real solutions even on tough issues like abortion, where we can come together to teach our kids responsibility and self-respect, to prevent unintended pregnancies, and offer strong support to women."

The Obama campaign has been promoting an unusual-suspect sort of endorsement from Douglas Kmiec, a Catholic law professor and former legal counsel in the Reagan administration.

Kmiec wrote a book making a Catholic case for Obama. He argues the Obama campaign is premised on Catholic social teaching like care for working families and the poor and foreign policy premised on peace over war. Democratic efforts to tackle social and economic factors that contribute to abortion hold more promise, Kmiec said, than Republican efforts to criminalize it.

While applauding Kmiec's past record, Chaput said: "I think his activism for Senator Barack Obama, and the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn."

Pro-Obama Catholics "seek to contextualize, demote and then counterbalance the evil of abortion with other important but less foundational social issues," said Chaput, who wrote a book this year, Render Unto Caesar, about Catholics and politics.

Chaput emphasized he was speaking as a private citizen and not as a representative of the Denver archdiocese. The IRS prohibits clergy, in their role as clergy, from supporting or opposing candidates. Chaput already has said that Obama running mate Joe Biden, a Catholic, should not present himself for Communion because of his abortion rights position.

Chris Korzen, executive director of Washington-based Catholics United, which has argued in direct mail and TV ads that taking the "pro-life" position means more than opposing abortion rights, criticized Chaput's statements.

"We are concerned that Archbishop Chaput's comments - even those made in his personal capacity - will have a chilling effect on this dialogue," Korzen said in a statement. "It is also profoundly unfortunate that Archbishop Chaput has chosen to make personal attacks on lay Catholics acting in good faith to promote Catholic values in the public square."

Wow.


Comments:

Many Catholics will be deceived by the rhetoric. God knows that many have already been sidelining the issue for the sake of other, less important ones for years.

It's like fighting a ghost, with your hands tied behind your back by IRS regulations. The Bishops have individually done, I think, an incredible job of making it very clear that a vote for Obama is quite simply a vote for the evils of abortion for all intents and purposes.

What's incredibly astonishing is that they do this in the face of arguments that change constantly:

"There are a number of OTHER issues."
AKA: "I don't believe they're humans."

"Pro-life means more than just abortion."
AKA: "Abortion is ok if we can make its survivors happier people."

"Let's move past our differences and focus on how we can work together."
AKA: "Let's agree I won and stop fighting."

"Obama is the REAL pro-life candidate."
AKA: "I'm pulling arguments out my rear now."

Kudos to my fellow Catholics who can see through the deceptive word games and make a vote based on something other than their own interests.

Posted by: Alex at October 20, 2008 12:15 PM


Well said Alex.

Thank the Lord for Archbishop Chaput.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 20, 2008 12:31 PM


Hi Bobby,
Yesterday a pro-life democrat Catholic theologian posted quite a large article on why he is voting for Obama. Sorry, I hope this link works, but if not his piece was in yesterdays opinion page of the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
It was written by Frank Reilly.
I was so mad and want to write a letter to the editor, but there is sooooo much to say I don't even know where to begin.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/31185954.html?elr=KArksUUUU

I would love to get your opinion on this.

Posted by: Sandy at October 20, 2008 12:41 PM


Sandy,

I read the editorial -- Mr. Reilly started off his piece by stating his reservations regarding Obama then did an about-face by criticizing McCain/Palin for having the same concerns, yet he will now support Obama because of their (legitimate) criticisms. Did this seem as nonsensical to you as it did to me?!!

Posted by: Eileen #2 at October 20, 2008 12:55 PM


Sandy, Mr.Reilly did seem to be a bit over the top with his criticisms of Obama, but I appreciate that he ended up endorsing him. His conclusion was spot on.

Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2008 12:57 PM


Eileen#2,
Yes.

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 1:01 PM


Sandy, I"ll definitely check that out. I might not be able to until tonight because I have the baby at school, and she's wild. She will always make a break for the door and start crawling around in the hallways whenever I"m not looking. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 20, 2008 1:02 PM


We need to pray for the Catholics United group. They have been led astray by the moral relativism of the day. God bless Archbishop Chaput.

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 1:17 PM


Eileen,
Yes. This article makes no sense especially coming from a pro-life Catholic Theologian.
I almost think that this left leaning paper purposely choose Mr. Reilly to cleverly promote to Catholics that it is ok to vote for Obama.
I could cry.

Bobby,
Thanks for taking the time. I started to write a letter, but am overwhelmed with how to even respond to this.

Posted by: Sandy at October 20, 2008 2:43 PM


"Obama is the REAL pro-life candidate."
AKA: "I'm pulling arguments out my rear now."

Alex at October 20, 2008 12:15 PM
-----

I actually had a guy do this the other day after just starting a conversation - I noticed that he had a Choose Life sticker on the back of his old pickup truck, and we talked a little bit about pro-life issues, then I asked him if was aware of BornAliveTruth.org.

He told me he didn't have a computer - so I started to relate to him how Obama voted on BAIPA - and he stopped me and said - "but Obama's pro-life!"

He didn't want to believe it, but when I started mentioning IL Senate Bill numbers and dates, he switched the topic - to Iraq!

He went into full BDS, unjust war, etc... and refused to address BAIPA again.

He drove away angry at me - as though telling the truth was bad.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 20, 2008 3:00 PM


There you go Chris, finally understanding that people just don't care about BAIPA. I've never seen such a long standing grudge about a law that actually passed and is in effect. It's not enough to have the law you wanted, you have to continue the attack on anyone who didn't get on board Jill's BAIPA train at the right station?

Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2008 3:12 PM


Hal : "It's not enough to have the law you wanted, you have to continue the attack on anyone who didn't get on board Jill's BAIPA train at the right station?"

Yeah who cares about that whole slavery thing! I mean, in the end, the US abolished slavery after all. Why be upset with people who supported it anyways?

Posted by: Oliver at October 20, 2008 3:17 PM


I don't see the same kind of attacks towards those who supported slavery as we're seeing against Obama.

Lincoln, in fact, reached out to mend fences with those who wanted to expand slavery.


With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.
Abraham Lincoln

Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2008 3:26 PM


Chris,

He told me he didn't have a computer - so I started to relate to him how Obama voted on BAIPA - and he stopped me and said - "but Obama's pro-life!""Obama's Pro-life" ????

Hilarious.

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 3:28 PM


Sandy,

I read the article, and it's just bad. He doesn't say anything of substance. To me, the article isn't even worth responding to because he didn't say anything.

"Obama used to not have my vote. McCain/Palin and cronies have said all sorts of terrible stuff about Obama, and that made me change my mind. Obama is one crafty dude who may not be perfect, but he has my vote."

There is very little info in the actual article that isn't present in the above summary.

Of course, there is all the obvious criticisms like "how can a pro-lifer vote for Obama" but I"m also curious as to the authors "wish[ing] he [Obama] had picked up ...a lot of the "liberation theology,"". Liberation theology was condemned by the Catholic Church way back in the late 60s or early 70s and there hadn't been much talk of it since. I'd be very skeptical of any Catholic Theologian who supports the ideas of liberation theology. It automatically puts your trustworthiness on the level of a Hans Kung as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know, Sandy. I wish I had more insight, but there just wasn't much there, and I'd just describe this Reilly character as another "wolf in sheep's clothing." They're a dime a dozen. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 20, 2008 3:36 PM


Hal,
I'm all for going aboard" Jill's BAIPA train". I like the sound of that! Let's print up some fliers, and I'm there!

Jill?

. . . . . . . . . . .

Hal,
Do you actually think that reaching a hand out to abortionists will do any good?

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 3:39 PM


Janet, I doubt it would. But, when you succeed in getting the BAIPA passed, do you still have to attack those who opposed it?

let. it. go.

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 3:45 PM


Hal,

For as long as you've been coming to Jill's site, you have to at least begun to grasp that we feel that unborn children are human beings. Human beings that are being slaughtered at a rate of 3500 per day (in our country alone).

That's just naive to think we have any intention of meeting anyone halfway on this. If that makes me stubborn, then stubborn I be on saving children's lives.

Posted by: Alex at October 20, 2008 3:47 PM


hal,

..But, when you succeed in getting the BAIPA passed, do you still have to attack those who opposed it?

It's not an attack. It's making Obama's record known to those who are voting for the next President of the United States. They deserve to know the truth.

. . . . . . .

Alex,
I be stubborn too! :)

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 4:08 PM


Stubborn I be!!

Posted by: Carla at October 20, 2008 4:12 PM


There you go Chris, finally understanding that people just don't care about BAIPA.
Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2008 3:12 PM

Chilling to think that many people like Hal don't think the slaughter of totally defenseless babies isnt an issue. Or maybe its just above their pay grade?

But tell me Hal.... I want to know what exactly Nobama has accomplished in his political career? What has he done, particularly in the US senate to demonstrate leadership, or to show he would have even a clue what to do about the economy, immigration, and other issues?

What exactly would Nobama do? I know he would sign FOCA, he says its the first thing he would do, so we know what his priorities are, but aside from that, what exactly does Nobama propose to do about the problems of today?

What "change" can we expect from Nobama?

And what leadership qualities does he have? Could you ever see him standing up to Pelosi and Reid about anything? Has he ever challenged his party on any issue?

I would love to hear the kool aid drinkers tell us exactly WHY they think their hero deserves to be President.

Posted by: Joanne at October 20, 2008 4:16 PM


That old guy probably received a "Catholics United" mailing and believed it. If only he had a computer, so he could have looked up the truth.

Like I said in the medical student is freaked out thread, some people don't believe the truth even if they had proof right in front of them.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 20, 2008 4:22 PM


I would love to hear the kool aid drinkers tell us exactly WHY they think their hero deserves to be President.
Posted by: Joanne at October 20, 2008 4:16 PM

Not just because he's so much better than McCain.

We like his temperment, his foreign policy approaches, his alternative energy plan, his tax plan, the types of judges he would select, and--yes--the fact that he's pro choice. I like the people he listens to on the economy, I like that he talks to people he disagrees with. I like his idea for college students to "give back" in exchange for help with tuition. I like this approach to gay rights (I wish he would actually lead more in that area). I admire the way he ran against Senator Clinton, and the way he campaigns against McCain. He is an honorable, decent, intelligent man, who I thin would be an outstanding president.

I don't expect everyone to agree with us on these issues, but I'm puzzled that you keep acting like these reasons don't exist. The reasons you don't want him to win, are "exactly WHY" we want him to.

Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2008 4:40 PM


Obama will change this counrty. Obama's change will include a loss of freedom, invasion by foreign militants, gay marriage, live abortion, and a islamic revolution.Good luck because I am moving out of the country when he is elected..The man mistakenly said in an interview "my muslim faith." How do you make that mistake. Also, leaders from terrorist organizations are endorsing him...He made up his own flag because he doesn't believe in Washingtons Flag---BTW: his flag is the sun rising over the west..Read the bible...Some Americans are so stupid. Wake up before its to late...BTW: Name one thing that he has changed ..LOL

Posted by: Freedom at October 20, 2008 4:44 PM


Hal,

I don't expect everyone to agree with us on these issues, but I'm puzzled that you keep acting like these reasons don't exist. The reasons you don't want him to win, are "exactly WHY" we want him to.

While you may be right about some of the qualities you list, they don't necessarily define a good President, IMO. McCain has more leadership experience.

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 4:59 PM


So you like his "share the wealth plan" Hal? Besides signing FOCA that is about the only other thing he has been specific about.

What do you mean the "people he listens to on the economy"? Who would that be?

Gay rights? Meaning gay marriage? Is that a Nobama promise?

Posted by: Joanne at October 20, 2008 5:03 PM


Obama has not come out strongly in favor of gay marriage (that I know of). I hope he does.

"share the wealth" is not really different than saying "a rising tide lifts all ships."


Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 5:06 PM


If I knew nothing else about the candidates, rantings like the one above from "Freedom" would push me in the Obama camp so fast. Anyone who doesn't know the difference between Ohio's flag and an "Obama flag" is not a serious commentator on this election.

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 5:10 PM


I see this sort of thing as a good happening. First of all, lets flush those "cafeteria Catholics" out of the fold and call a spade a spade. If you support abortion you ain't Catholic. Period.
Secondly lets call our brother and sister Catholics to straighten up and fly right and embrace the fullness of their faith. Catholics for choice - get lost and join another faith. Period.
Those who are interested might want to check out Opposing Viewpoints

Posted by: Patricia at October 20, 2008 5:12 PM


We like his temperment, his foreign policy approaches, his alternative energy plan, his tax plan, the types of judges he would select, and--yes--the fact that he's pro choice. I like the people he listens to on the economy, I like that he talks to people he disagrees with. I like his idea for college students to "give back" in exchange for help with tuition. I like this approach to gay rights (I wish he would actually lead more in that area). I admire the way he ran against Senator Clinton, and the way he campaigns against McCain. He is an honorable, decent, intelligent man, who I thin would be an outstanding president.

I don't expect everyone to agree with us on these issues, but I'm puzzled that you keep acting like these reasons don't exist. The reasons you don't want him to win, are "exactly WHY" we want him to.

Posted by: Hal at October 20, 2008 4:40 PM

I have just fallen off my chair. Hal how can you beeeee so blind?
This man is a serial liar who has mastered his run for President in a hypnotic way that has all of you Obama supporters in a transe and unable to see anything beyond his lies.

Foreign policy approaches? He just received an endorsement from Kadafi. Hammas seems to be in the tank for him. Does this not scare you? Biden just stated that he believes there will be international incidents if he is elected and this is a fair way to "test" his ability to react. What will he say to the people on the receving end of an international incident??
Well......it's only fair you know.

Energy plan? What a joke. He predicts we will be off foreign oil in 10 years. Riiiiiigggggtt.
Not big on drilling. Another joke.

Tax plan? Every article on the economy I have read states you DO NOT INCREASE TAXES IN AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN BTW, it is not a tax plan it is just more welfare distribution.

His economic advisors? Be serious. He totally took a present vote when Wall Street blew up.
Weren't his economic advisors involved in the Wall Street meltdown?


Talks to people he disagrees with? He and his running mate publically slammed Joe the Plummber for asking a very good question and made fun of him while campaigning. He then allows the media to rip this guys life apart all to discredit him and divert attention away from the question.


Posted by: Sandy at October 20, 2008 5:21 PM


Sandy, I was asked why I was supporting Obama. I gave a few reasons. Joanne implied that the kool-aid drinkers didn't have any reasons. I have tons of reasons. I don't really need to debate them in detail here, but I could if you really want to. Have you noticed all the right-leaning newspapers and commentators who have endorsed Obama lately? It is not just me, most of the country is very excited about the idea. Get out of your cocoon and you'll see lots to like about Obama. You still might not vote for him because of other reasons (experience, abortion rights, gay rights, etc). That's fine. But why is it so hard to understand that the people supporting Obama are doing so because we like his policies, ideas, intelligence and temperament?

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 5:29 PM


He totally took a present vote when Wall Street blew up.
Posted by: Sandy at October 20, 2008 5:21 PM

That's what he does. I think it's something like 150 "present" votes in his very short senate career.

This is the "leadership" Nobama would bring to the White House.

By the way Sandy.... great post!

Posted by: Joanne at October 20, 2008 5:30 PM


Omg. "present" votes are common in the Illinois Senate. I don't know why, but it's simply another way of voting "no."

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 5:43 PM


I think Hal, you and many others have been blinded by this man's charisma. He has absolutely no moral fibre and no substance.
When he is elected, your country will continue it's downward spiral both financially and morally.

Sandy: perhaps America has HAD it's chance to change course and has been unable to during the past 10 to 15 years. Maybe, God is now giving your nation over to those who will destroy it or bring things to such a state that people's eyes will be opened. Ultimately, western society cannot continue on as it has. Morally it is rotten to the core, yet people don't seem to know and many who do either can't change it (because we are too few) or have given up.
In a way, the Republicans are like the Liberal party in Canada. The Liberals lost the election here because they chose a buffoon for their party leader who then tried to sell the idea of a carbon tax to Canadians who are taxed beyond forebearance.

Likewise the Republican party just doesn't have a great candidate. Otherwise, Obama wouldn't stand a chance. McCain is a good man, with honour and integrity on his side. But Obama has the better handlers and the charism.
Only too late, will America find this out. He will be a pushover on the international stage. I just can't see Obama dealaing with Putin or with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Posted by: Patricia at October 20, 2008 5:46 PM


Obama will do fine with Putin or Ahmadinejad. As McCain said, we have nothing to fear from Obama being President.

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 5:52 PM


Patricia, I personally dont think if the Republicans lose the election it will be because they picked McCain.

I believe it is because the majority of people blame the state of the economy on the Republican party, particularly because Bush is president.

That is why I fear not only McCain losing, but many pro life Republican senators going down as well.


It does not look good for the them even though Democrats are primarily responsible for the economic mess.

Posted by: Joanne at October 20, 2008 5:57 PM


yes, I would agree with that Joanne. It was Clinton administration who ok'd the idea of the loans wasn't it?
The person I want to kick is Colin Powell. I use to think quite highly of him. Now I think he's a jerk with a capital J!

And Hal, you wait, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will have Obama reading the Koran before news conferences in an attempt to pacify Iran...

Keep circling the block, Hal....

Posted by: Patricia at October 20, 2008 6:06 PM


Patricia... I cant say Powell surprised me.... never considered him to be a conservative.

The reason I say Democrats are more responsible is because back about 3 or 4 years ago there were some Republicans, including John McCain, who could see a disaster coming and tried to regulate Freddie and Frannie and were stopped by Democrats.... Chris Dodd and Barney Frank primarily. I heard that Nobama wants Dodd as his treasury secretary.

It's quite ironic that the people primarily for ignoring the impending disaster will almost certainly be reelected and back in their leadership positions.

As you said people will eventually find out about Nobama but it will be too late. I suspect most people who are voting for him cant even state why they are doing so. Only that they want "change."

They certainly will get that!

Posted by: Joanne at October 20, 2008 6:13 PM


Most Catholics like my parents, are moderate to liberal. People like Chaput don't even figure in to their equation, and in many respects provide fuel to the fire for progressive catholics. Chaput has more in common with fringe elements such as Opus Dei than he does with mainstream catholicism. His rabid he's more a polemicist than a Bishop, and that detracts from any authority his office might normally grant him.

Posted by: Yo La Tengo at October 20, 2008 6:16 PM


"People like Chaput don't even figure in to their equation, and in many respects provide fuel to the fire for progressive catholics. Chaput has more in common with fringe elements such as Opus Dei than he does with mainstream catholicism."

Yo La,

No one here cares about "mainstream" Catholicism. The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is gravely immoral. Period. And the good Archbishop teaches that. So he's not in rebellion like "mainstream" Catholcism, whatever that means.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 20, 2008 6:23 PM


well if it's any comfort to you and others Joanne it is the same way with the liberal government that Canada had in the '70's and early 80's. They ran the country into the ground with their social programs and high expenditures. The conservative government under Mulroney managed to get control of things but it took years to balance the government books. The reason Canada has been doing so well is becuase of the Harper conservatives. I think the Liberal party plan in the election promised something like $80 BILLION in handouts. This is probably one of the reasons they lost so big up here. May God have them dig themselves a pit they never get out of. Amen.

Posted by: Patricia at October 20, 2008 6:27 PM


Bobby,
For "mainstreamers", being Catholic is like having a country club membership, except they never go and they don't pay dues.

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 6:36 PM


But why is it so hard to understand that the people supporting Obama are doing so because we like his policies, ideas, intelligence and temperament?

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 5:29 PM

Hal,
Because this man is a serial LIAR!! You don't know the real Obama, no one does. He is smoke and mirrors. His policies are fabrications of what you want to believe he will do. He has masterfully got his rhetoric down. It is easy to sound skillfully experienced and intelligent when all you do is make S%#t up as you go along. He has no concience.

He hasn't come clean about many things in his life. If he was a Republican the media would have squashed him like a bug months ago, but he still continues to get a free pass.

Any man who would violate human rights by allowing a baby to die is beyond repair. No telling what else he will do.

My prediction if god forbid he gets elected, our economy will sink into a major economic depression, we will see unrest in the middle east like we never have before and our country will be more vulnerable to attacks on our own soil. He has no leadership experience and will be caught without a clue what to do. You can't vote present when making presidential decisions. He will further spiral into a web of deceipt. He has proven to have poor judgement in his life decisions thus far. Past behavior predicts future behavior. Unfortunately we will all pay the price.

Posted by: Sandy at October 20, 2008 6:47 PM


intelligence? "Its above my pay grade" Sounds like he's trying to avoid the subject altogether with that answer.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 20, 2008 6:58 PM


I heard this the other day and thought it was a perfect description.

Obama is a "poser" nothing more. He is good at wanting to be president, but won't pull it off.

Posted by: Sandy at October 20, 2008 6:58 PM


Nobama praises Ayers book. But remember..... he's just a "guy from his neighbourhood".

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/obama-praised-searing-timely-book-ayers/

Posted by: Joanne at October 20, 2008 7:02 PM


Hmmm... if I was running for President this is one group I would not want to endorse me.

http://spectator.org/blog/2008/10/20/hamas-praises-obama-again-and

Posted by: Joanne at October 20, 2008 7:27 PM


He hasn't come clean about many things in his life. If he was a Republican the media would have squashed him like a bug months ago, but he still continues to get a free pass."

Not true. You can look at Palin's free pass and understand. No press conference until after the election? Are you considered with her lies? I thought not.

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 8:22 PM


Hal,

Interesting how you ignore his Ayers endorsement, and the endorsement from a terrorist group.

Of course, you won't hear this stuff on the Communist News Network nor on the other Obama network MSNBC.

But I'm interested in hearing how you spin this one. Joe Biden promises an international crisis within six month if Nobama is President. this is the same guy who said Nobama was unqualified, and that the presidency is no place for on the job training.

Sounds like even Biden is worried about Nobama being President:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymy0Woaz81U

Posted by: Joanne at October 20, 2008 8:41 PM


Imagine how the talking heads on TV would go absolutely bonkers if a terrorist group endorsed McCain. But of course, not a peep from the "mainstream media" on that.

Posted by: Joanne at October 20, 2008 8:44 PM


I don't read Biden's statements that way Joanne.

I think it's interesting how you ignore everything negative about Palin/McCain. I understand why, but it's interesting.

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 8:49 PM


Hal @ 8:22,

"He hasn't come clean about many things in his life. If he was a Republican the media would have squashed him like a bug months ago, but he still continues to get a free pass."

Not true. You can look at Palin's free pass and understand. No press conference until after the election? Are you considered with her lies? I thought not.

Palin's not running for President, for the zillionth time. She isn't expected to be scrutinized like the future president should be.

If Obama's such a great guy, why is he taking RECORD amounts in campaign contributions - many from people who can't afford it? He should be telling them to hang on to their hard-earned cash (they're going to need it) or donate to some worthy local cause.


Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 8:53 PM


That is right, its not Palin or Biden running for PResident, its Nobama and McCain.

However I find it very disturbing that Biden would "guarantee" a crisis within six months. Fearmongering? Or maybe he genuinely is fearful of Nobama getting in?

After all it was Biden who said the Presidency is not the place for on the job training.

And I am 100% certain no terrorist groups have endorsed McCain, but they have Nobama, not to mention Nobama's very questionable ties to other people of unsavory character.

Posted by: Joanne at October 20, 2008 8:56 PM


Palin's not running for President, for the zillionth time. She isn't expected to be scrutinized like the future president should be."

You can't believe this! Name one other VP nominee in the last 50 years who didn't give at least one press conference between the convention and the election.

With McCain's history of cancer, and his age, I think everyone (but you) agrees that she must be scrutinized exactly like a future president should be.

Check this out:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an honorable man with a high place in the McCain campaign, when asked about Palin's failure to do so much as a Meet the Press appearance, told the Washington Post: "We're asking the American people to pick the next president and vice president, and we do not expect the American people to do so—'Trust me'—blindly. She will have to do what's expected of people in this business. … In countries where that does not happen, I do not want to live." That highly admirable statement was made Sept. 2.

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 9:00 PM


Hal,

You can't believe this! Name one other VP nominee in the last 50 years who didn't give at least one press conference between the convention and the election.

I'm sorry, but I've never noticed one way or the other who gave press conferences and who didn't for the last (almost) 50 years of my life.

Should I be appalled? What's everyone dying to ask her anyways?

Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 9:12 PM


What's everyone dying to ask her anyways?
Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 9:12 PM

Janet, come on now.

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 9:33 PM


Hal, Obviously you aren't taking me seriously either. I'm tough like Sarah. I can handle it.


Posted by: Janet at October 20, 2008 10:10 PM


Jill:

Barack's attempt at misleading and decieving not only Catholics but the whole of Christianity is contemptible and worthy of condemnation.

Perhaps Mr. Obama should read these passages:
"Matthew 7:20-22 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'"

"Matthew 12:49-50 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 50For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.""

"Galatians 1:7-9 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"

I say, if Barack Obama wants to support abortion and say he's a Christian let him also receive the penalty for adhering to such heresy. Why my Christian friends would you want to risk your very souls to support a man who's willing to trade his soul for power?

"Matthew 16:25-27 25For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. 26What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done."

"Luke 12:4-6 4I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. 6Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God."

The choice is yours..........

Posted by: HisMan at October 20, 2008 10:24 PM


I think Jess might like the part about the sparrows.

Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 10:57 PM


Jill:

Please ban Hal.

I've had enough of his blasphemy.

Posted by: HisMan at October 21, 2008 12:42 AM


Why on earth would Palin meet the press when all they've done is ridicule and excoriate her? She knows they will turn everything around and twist statements. Instead of focusing on the campaign Palin will be forced to defend herself, her family, her baby Trig, her views. The MSM bias is there and you KNOW it hal. As a lawyer you know it and you use it yourself.
This exact situation happened in Canada. Harper, a Conservative was given nasty press all the time as opposition leader. First thing he did when he became PM - he ended the weekly news scrums outside the HOuse of Commons. Why? Bad press. He told the reporters - when you guys learn how to accurately quote and responsibly report the facts, then we can start back. Took reporters about 6 mons to get the message. Guess they thought he wasn't gonna be around that long.


What I would like to see is the Catholic bishops come out and tell people that if they vote for a proabort candidate they will be excommunicated. The bishops is South America did this telling Catholics that if proaborts were elected and proabortion legislation instituted, these Catholics would be directly complicit and cupable in any abortion(s) that occurred. It is time Catholics realized that they are accountable for ALL their actions including their votes in public life.

Posted by: Patricia at October 21, 2008 7:56 AM


Patricia, that response at least addresses the issues. Janet's "what do they want to ask her anyway" didn't seem serious.

Posted by: hal at October 21, 2008 9:26 AM


Interesting poll results today:

Obama also took a lead among voters above the age of 70 and expanded his lead among Hispanics and Catholics. His support among Republicans grew from 9 percent to 12 percent a day after he received the endorsement of Republican former Secretary of State Colin Powell

Posted by: hal at October 21, 2008 9:28 AM


Jill:

Please ban Hal.

I've had enough of his blasphemy.
Posted by: HisMan at October 21, 2008 12:42 AM

You misjudge me old friend. Consider this,I have read more scripture in your quotes here then in all my 47 years of life before Jill's blog. I found this line beautiful, and it reminded me of Jess

Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God

I don't dispute I am often guilty of blasphemy, and if I am to be banned for it, so be it. In this particular instance, however, I'm innocent.

Posted by: hal at October 21, 2008 9:36 AM


I just read a poll that states McCain has overtaken Obama in several states. I am sure I can find a different poll that shows the opposite.

Posted by: Carla at October 21, 2008 10:37 AM


Yes, Carla, I'm sure they polls are all over the place. Interesting run down on each poll and their methodology today on fivethirtyeight.com

I think I'll just wait until 11/4 and see who wins.

Posted by: hal at October 21, 2008 10:40 AM


Me too.
How come nobody ever polls me or my prolife friends?

Posted by: Carla at October 21, 2008 10:47 AM


or me and my pro choice friends. These polls only talk to about 1000 people each day. There are 300 million Americans. Still, they are usually somewhat accurate. There is a science behind it, not one I understand, but pretty elaborate.

Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2008 11:00 AM


I hope you have a nice day, Hal.

Posted by: Carla at October 21, 2008 11:35 AM


Poor hal. He's going to be so crushed when he finds out that NoBama not only hasn't come out in favor of gay marriage, but that he and Joe are both on record as opposing gay marriage. Sorry, hal.

And then there was this little exchange:

hal: "..But, when you succeed in getting the BAIPA passed, do you still have to attack those who opposed it?"

"It's not an attack. It's making Obama's record known to those who are voting for the next President of the United States. They deserve to know the truth."

Is it just me, or is it very telling of a certain mindset that thinks that a simple statement of the actual, verified voting record of his Obamessiah is an "attack"?

Posted by: Doyle at October 21, 2008 11:37 AM


Doyle, the attack (yes, attack) on Obama for his vote on the BAIPA on this site has gone far beyond "a simple statement" about his voting record. It has been constant, inflamatory, and malicious. For awhile there, it was several articles a day accusing him of supporting "infanticide." I have no objection to someone stating his voting record on this issue; it is a legitmate campaign issue. But repeating this stuff day after day, with such mock outrage, trying to elevate this to a signficant concern for the voters, constitutes an attack.

Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2008 12:20 PM


Doyle, I am disappointed with Obama's position on gay marriage. I wouldn't say I'm "crushed." I can accept that Obama and I don't agree on every issue. That's America.

Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2008 12:22 PM


Are we all bashing Hal again?

I like you Hal.

Posted by: Leah at October 21, 2008 1:59 PM


Why is it HM keeps calling for Hal to be banned? He's done nothing ban-worthy that I've noticed. Not being a man of faith is not a banworthy offense.

Posted by: Dan at October 21, 2008 2:22 PM


Are we all bashing Hal again?

I like you Hal.

Posted by: Leah at October 21, 2008 1:59 PM

I don't think so. Are you trying to stir up trouble? (just kidding.)
:-)

Posted by: Janet at October 21, 2008 2:38 PM


Not true. You can look at Palin's free pass and understand. No press conference until after the election? Are you considered with her lies? I thought not.


Posted by: hal at October 20, 2008 8:22 PM

Free Pass? Excuse me?
The Nobama sent 30 hired men to Alaska to find out as much dirt on her as they could.
This woman has been beaten up by the press everyday since McCain picked her as his running mate. No VP has ever been through the wringer like Sarah Palin.

Hal,
What do you think of crazy uncle Joe's statement about the certainty of an international crisis within the first 6 months of an Obama presidency?

Crazy old Joe was selected for his foreign policy expertise to fill the void in Obama and he just gave an open invitation for us to be attacked??? Great foreign policy experience.

I think crazy uncle Joe is losing it. Has he been tested for dementia??

This gaffe master is a heartbeat away from being president and he publically makes this statement more than once?

What are they going to do with crazy uncle Joe if they are elected? Lock him in a closet?

Posted by: Sandy at October 21, 2008 3:36 PM


Are we all bashing Hal again?
I like you Hal.

Posted by: Leah at October 21, 2008 1:59 PM

Thanks so much. I like you too.

Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2008 3:43 PM



I have no problem with Biden's comments. I read them in context, and don't see anything crazy about them.

Palin, yes, has been given a free pass. It has not worked, however. Today's NYT/CBS poll:

Mr. Obama’s favorability is the highest for a presidential candidate running for a first term in the last 28 years of Times/CBS polls. Mrs. Palin’s negative rating is the highest for a vice-presidential candidate as measured by The Times and CBS News. Even Dan Quayle, with whom Mrs. Palin is often compared because of her age and inexperience on the national scene, was not viewed as negatively in the 1988 campaign.

Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2008 3:48 PM


Hal: " I have no objection to someone stating his voting record on this issue; it is a legitmate campaign issue. But repeating this stuff day after day, with such mock outrage, trying to elevate this to a signficant concern for the voters, constitutes an attack. "

Hal, repeating "this stuff" day after day is necessary and relevant when the candidate HIMSELF refuses to acknowledge the truth about his own votes in the Illinois senate, not to mention that the MSM won't touch it with a 90 foot pole. Were it not for prolifers, your Obamessiah could've swept the babies under the rug forever on this one.

As far as "mock outrage" and "significant concern", well if that's the best you can come up with, I suppose we'll just have to plead guilty (except for the "mock" part), and proud of it, btw.

And "infanticide"? How is it NOT infanticide to refuse medical attention to an "accidentally" born alive baby??? Do YOU approve of the "broom closet therapy" given to those babies too???

Posted by: Doyle at October 21, 2008 3:53 PM


Nothing in Obama's past indicates he would force or even encourage a doctor to deny medical treatment to a baby born alive.

We've been through this a 1000 times. The worst you can say is he failed to support one bill designed to reduce such occurances. (and, by the way, any evidence that the passage of this bill has been effective?)

Senators vote on hundreds of bills, using their best judgment on the pros and cons. You can disagree with Obama's votes, but that hardly makes him a monster.

Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2008 4:12 PM


That's right, Hal, nothing EXCEPT his FOUR VOTES against BAIPA in Illinois.

No, he didn't just "fail to support", he actively worked to kill, and VOTED AGAINST the bill FOUR TIMES, Hal.

"Not a monster"? Is that the VERY BEST defense you can make of your Obamessiah, Hal? That he's "not a monster"? Good grief, man.... is that your standard for supporting a candidate for president?

Posted by: Doyle at October 21, 2008 4:38 PM


Doyle, I'd be happy of those opposing him would realize he's "not a monster." Those of us who support him have a much higher opinion. But, you've already heard that from us, I didn't think I had to repeat it in every comment.

Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2008 4:52 PM


I don't like that he would consider his hypothetical grandchild would be a "punishment".

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 21, 2008 5:35 PM


Only "punishment" if they don't want a child.
If my teenage daughter somehow got pregnant, I would advise an abortion. I don't think that's a radical idea.

Some would say, "you had sex, you have the child." That's treating the child as punishment.


Posted by: Hal at October 21, 2008 5:39 PM


If my teenage daughter somehow got pregnant, I would advise an abortion. I don't think that's a radical idea.

Oh my. Isn't it enough that you killed two of your own children. Are you now going to start wasting your grandchildren too? Have a heart Hal. My opinion of you just sinks lower every day. Lord knows I've tried to like you :-P

Posted by: Patricia at October 21, 2008 6:56 PM


Patricia, do you understand that many of us see nothing wrong with abortion?

Posted by: hal at October 21, 2008 7:08 PM


NO Hal, I don't understand that you and others like you, feel that killing children, your own in particular is not wrong.
May God have mercy on you. There is something so desperately lacking in you, I cannot find the words to express it.

Posted by: Patricia at October 21, 2008 8:02 PM


Patricia, you don't have to understand, just accept us. ;)

Posted by: hal at October 21, 2008 8:16 PM


No Hal,I do NOT have to accept you. That is like telling people they just have to accept Jeffery Dahlmer or Jack the Ripper.
You are asking me to accept people who promote and perpetrate evil. That I cannot do.
Your actions in killing your children and your beliefs are diabolical.

Posted by: Patricia at October 21, 2008 8:21 PM


you seem to have strong feelings about this.

I'll leave it for now. We can all cool down and discuss some more another time.

Posted by: hal at October 21, 2008 8:33 PM


Patricia: You are asking me to accept people who promote and perpetrate evil. That I cannot do.

Same as Pro-Lifers wanting others to accept them telling the pregnant woman what to do - a great evil in the eyes of many.

Posted by: Doug at October 21, 2008 8:56 PM


actually I feel quite calm Hal.
I say the above quite matter of factly because it is a fact.
However, it would be nice to see YOU express some emotion over your dead children other than glee...
Evening....

Posted by: Patricia at October 21, 2008 8:57 PM


Same as Pro-Lifers wanting others to accept them telling the pregnant woman what to do - a great evil in the eyes of many.

Posted by: Doug at October 21, 2008 8:56 PM

okay so this isn't a distortion. PLEASE. There is nothing evil in the birth of a baby. If this is how you view babies, you are warped.

Posted by: Patricia at October 21, 2008 9:00 PM


have a nice evening, men. I would say gentlemen, but the term does not fit. My apologies....

Posted by: Patricia at October 21, 2008 9:04 PM


Patricia-

You should not be feeling anger towards them. Instead try to feel forgiveness, compassion and mercy.

As for Hal's statement, it isn't that uncommon at all. My friend recently went through a pregnancy "scare" and when asked if she was going to consider an abortion or not, she said "no, I'll live with my mistake (emphasis added). It's how people have come to view pregnancies in those in younger woman, and she did make legitimately unwise decisions, but the simple fact remains societal thinking needs to be changed, and changing laws doesnt do that, nor does trying to convince people to overhaul their entire culture. One step at a time, it's frustrating, it's slow, it's a pain, but it's how it works.

Posted by: Dan at October 21, 2008 10:30 PM


Dan: first of all I have NO anger towards Hal, only very strong disgust and a complete lack of comprehension as to how a father can deliberately kill his own child-actually two of them. I don't think Hal's occupation as a lawyer (if indeed this is true) is insignificant. In law school, students are taught to rationalize virtually every decision they make as lawyers. It is impossible to live this way in one area of your life and not in others. I have some first hand experience in this unfortunately. Most lawyers do not have good personal lives and it's little wonder.

And you are quite wrong about the effect of laws on society. Laws are here to guard and protect all citizens and they do legislate morality. That is partly their purpose. Laws can change behaviour. If there were no laws against shoplifting, do you not think that people would simply wander into stores and just grab things and leave without paying? I think "shoplifting" would be much much more prevalent if there were no laws against it.
Likewise if abortion were legal, it might not change sexual behaviour immediately, but people would know that they cannot kill their children and they would have the baby, either keep it or adopt out. The argument that there will be huge numbers of illegal abortions is false. There would be some illegal abortions just as there is some illegal activity with people shoplifting now. But there certainly would not be 1.5 million illegal abortions per year. Even the proaborts admit their numbers of abortions prior to Roe were grossly inflated.
Have a nice day.

Posted by: Patricia at October 22, 2008 7:01 AM


Hal says: "Doyle, I'd be happy of those opposing him would realize he's "not a monster."

Okay, hal, he isn't a monster. He's a human being who voted four times to kill a proposal to insure medical care for babies accidentally born alive after a botched abortion. That's what he is.

And to me, that's even more disgusting that being a monster.. because a monster might not know what he was doing. Obama did.

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at October 22, 2008 7:51 AM


That proposal Obama voted to stop has now passed, and according to Jill's WND article today, has had no effect. Looks like Obama was right that this bill wasn't the solution.

Posted by: hal at October 22, 2008 10:04 AM


========= My friend recently went through a pregnancy "scare" and when asked if she was going to consider an abortion or not, she said "no, I'll live with my mistake (emphasis added). ============

Dan, was the mistake the child or the actions that could have lead to conception, in your friend's view? There's a big difference, and both can be implied from the remark.

Posted by: Michael at October 22, 2008 1:41 PM


"Same as Pro-Lifers wanting others to accept them telling the pregnant woman what to do - a great evil in the eyes of many."

Patricia: okay so this isn't a distortion. PLEASE.

No, it's not a distortion.
.....


There is nothing evil in the birth of a baby. If this is how you view babies, you are warped.

Agreed, and I don't.

But attempting to subvert the will of pregnant women, just as the will of the slaves was subverted - you bet your bippy that many see it as a great evil.

Posted by: Doug at October 22, 2008 8:29 PM


you have no idea what your talking about Doug. In the first place your comment demonstrates you do not understand in the least, the analogy between slavery and abortion....
yawn....how many times must we explain this concept to you.....yawn....

Posted by: Patricia at October 22, 2008 8:36 PM


Here is the Catholic Doctrine. If you choose to be Catholic then this is your faith:

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

This issue is so fundamental that should a Catholic choose to live otherwise then as stated, you excommunicate yourself from the Body of Christ. It is profane that anybody who calls themselves Catholic would support abortion.

Posted by: truthseeker at October 23, 2008 8:09 AM


Doug said that "attempting to subvert the will of pregnant women...[is]...a great evil."

No, attempting to pervert the will of an expectant mother is a great evil. If Patricia were pregnant, Doug would be guilty of this great evil. Knowing Patricia's robust convictions, I doubt that she would succumb, but a younger woman might. Girls are in their formative years, and "pro-choicers" attempt to seduce (corrupt) them already then.

The expectant mother is fulfilling her body's purpose of reproduction. Except in the case of rape, she has chosen to fulfill this purpose. Even in the case of rape, she is fulfilling it. Even in the case of fornication or adultery, she is fulfilling it. One cannot cancel a sin by compounding it with another.

To teach the expectant mother lies, cloud her judgement, and thus pervert her will is a great evil. Who in his right mind would teach that the best way to get along with each other is to kill each other? Who would suggest that the best way to love his nearest and dearest neighbour is to kill him? Yet, this is what the "pro-choicers" teach future men and women in school. Live like cats and dogs!--but not even cats and dogs kill their offspring.

Who perverted Doug's will? That also was a great evil.

Posted by: Jon at October 23, 2008 8:19 AM


Doug,

Feminists used to say that a man's opinion on choice (especially when he was pro-life) doesn't matter because abortion is a woman's issue. You probably remember those days.

You have a VERY strong opinion in favor of a woman's choice to abort her baby if she wants. Where did you acquire this? Is it from personal experience? Is there someone you know who was forced to carry her baby when she didn't want to? I don't mean to get too personal, don't answer if you don't want to.

Posted by: Janet at October 23, 2008 1:57 PM


truthseeker,

Here is the Catholic Doctrine. If you choose to be Catholic then this is your faith:

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

This issue is so fundamental that should a Catholic choose to live otherwise then as stated, you excommunicate yourself from the Body of Christ.

I would like to add, as I understand it, that the "Body of Christ" holds two meanings.
One, the Catholic Church.
Two, the sacrament of the Eucharist (Holy Communion) which Catholic teaching holds is the true Body of Christ.

Formal cooperation in abortion results in a grave offense which would take away the ability for a Catholic to receive the Eucharist, until he made a sincere confession of his sin through the sacrament of Penance.

Posted by: Janet at October 23, 2008 2:08 PM


Their is no war among REAL Catholics. It is spelled out oh so clearly in the Catechism. Got that Dan. That os one of the beauties of the Catholic faith. They have passed down the faith in the Catechism and those who disregard the teaching on abrtion are NOT Catholic even if they call themselves so. God bless the Catholic Church and praise be to Mary the Mother of God for watching over her Son's flock here on earth so that the gates of hell may not prevail against
her. Blessed be Mary in her humble example to the will of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for ages unending. Amen.

Posted by: truthseeker at October 23, 2008 11:03 PM


Blessed be Mary in her humble example of submission to the will of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for ages unending. Amen.

Posted by: ts at October 23, 2008 11:04 PM


Patricia: you have no idea what your talking about Doug. In the first place your comment demonstrates you do not understand in the least, the analogy between slavery and abortion....

The analogy is clear - you want a policy, law-changes, etc., that would attempt to force women with unwanted pregnancies to continue them. You want the will of those pregnant women subverted to your own will, as slaveowners wanted the will of the slaves subverted to their own.

Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 11:36 AM


Doug,

Patricia's analogy has to do with "right and wrong" - killing a baby, keeping a slave - both ignore the natural dignity of the human person. Ultimately abortion and slavery shouldn't just be about the rights of the slaveowner or the pregnant woman.

Since right and wrong (morality) is relevant to you, I'm not surprised the analogy is lost on you.

Posted by: Janet at October 24, 2008 12:01 PM


Patricia: There is nothing evil in the birth of a baby. If this is how you view babies, you are warped.

"Agreed, and I don't."

"But attempting to subvert the will of pregnant women, just as the will of the slaves was subverted - you bet your bippy that many see it as a great evil."

Jon: No, attempting to pervert the will of an expectant mother is a great evil.

Jon, I agree with you, but that is not the issue.

The issue is whether we let her will decide things or not.
.....


If Patricia were pregnant, Doug would be guilty of this great evil. Knowing Patricia's robust convictions, I doubt that she would succumb, but a younger woman might. Girls are in their formative years, and "pro-choicers" attempt to seduce (corrupt) them already then.

You're just making up cockamamie stories. Pro-Choicers are for leaving it up to the woman, Patricia or otherwise, strong convictions or not so strong. If she wants to continue a pregnancy, then fine.
.....


The expectant mother is fulfilling her body's purpose of reproduction. Except in the case of rape, she has chosen to fulfill this purpose. Even in the case of rape, she is fulfilling it. Even in the case of fornication or adultery, she is fulfilling it. One cannot cancel a sin by compounding it with another.

No - if she has an unwanted pregnancy and decides to end it, then she is choosing not to have kids, at least for the time.
.....


To teach the expectant mother lies, cloud her judgement, and thus pervert her will is a great evil. Who in his right mind would teach that the best way to get along with each other is to kill each other? Who would suggest that the best way to love his nearest and dearest neighbour is to kill him? Yet, this is what the "pro-choicers" teach future men and women in school. Live like cats and dogs!--but not even cats and dogs kill their offspring.

No, if you find somebody like that, they are just as anti-choice as you. Pro-Choicers are for what the woman wants; for letting her make her best choice, let her will hold sway - we're not wishing for our will to be imposed on her, as you do.

Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 12:01 PM


Janet: Patricia's analogy has to do with "right and wrong" - killing a baby, keeping a slave - both ignore the natural dignity of the human person. Ultimately abortion and slavery shouldn't just be about the rights of the slaveowner or the pregnant woman.

That should is up for argument. Agreed on the slaveowners (I'd rather have the will of the slaves hold sway) but I do not see that your will nor Patricia's should prevail over that of the pregnant woman (I'd rather her will hold sway).

There is nothing inherent in the "human person" as far as what you are supposing - that is a mental construct - and it's fine as far as it goes, but it is not a good enough reason to take away the freedom that women now have.
.....


Since right and wrong (morality) is relevant to you, I'm not surprised the analogy is lost on you.

You probably meant "irrelevant," but you were correct as you stated it - of course it's relevant to me - I have my ideas of good/bad/right/wrong in the moral realm just like anybody else.

Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 12:07 PM


Doug,

Jon: No, attempting to pervert the will of an expectant mother is a great evil.

This is true for you, but not for me, anyways - there's no objective truth on the subject of abortion, remember? It's about what I want and I don't want a woman to be able to have an abortion. Your opinion is no more valid than mine. (Taken from the book of Doug Logic.)
If you say most people want abortion to be legal, well I say, let's poll everyone in the U.S. I beg to differ.

You know there are a lot of people who cheat on their taxes because they don't want to pay them. Should we make that legal? I bet over half the people in the country wouldn't mind that. We could people a choice, change the law, because taxes can be a big inconvenience that some people would rather not have to deal with, you know? (I'm not condoning it, nor do I cheat, I mention it just for discussion.) According to Doug Logic, It's what I want, compared to what you want. I think paying taxes should be a personal choice.

Posted by: Janet at October 24, 2008 12:14 PM


Janet: Feminists used to say that a man's opinion on choice (especially when he was pro-life) doesn't matter because abortion is a woman's issue. You probably remember those days.

I really don't - sounds to me like those were the pro-Roe days....?

I do think it should be up to the woman, but feel that men certainly have input into the issue just as do women.
......


You have a VERY strong opinion in favor of a woman's choice to abort her baby if she wants. Where did you acquire this? Is it from personal experience? Is there someone you know who was forced to carry her baby when she didn't want to? I don't mean to get too personal, don't answer if you don't want to.

Good questions, Janet, and no problem - I've no secrets about this stuff. Never been acquainted with anybody forced to continue a pregnancy, other than women who are quite a bit older and who didn't have the legal option of abortion when they were pregnant.

No personal experience here - have never had a pregnant girlfriend or wife.

Until I was 20 or so, I'd say I was vaguely Pro-Life, it wasn't a big issue at all for me, but I felt like if you don't want to have kids then don't get pregnant. There always was a "yuck" factor, as with many surgical things.

I got my first computer when I was 37, and soon saw how fired up people got in the abortion debate, so there was really something there.

In thinking about it, I didn't see a good enough reason to have abortion be illegal. Whether it's a case of poor planning, imprudence, etc., if a girl/woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be, would I forbid her having an abortion? No I wouldn't - I see that as something that is properly decided for herself by herself.

I realize you see a compelling reason to ban or further restrict abortion, but I don't - and in lieu of that, I ask myself, "Who are we to tell the pregnant woman that she can't have an abortion?"

My answer is that we don't really need to.

Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 12:21 PM


Doug,

There is nothing inherent in the "human person" as far as what you are supposing - that is a mental construct -

You probably meant "irrelevant," but you were correct as you stated it - of course it's relevant to me - I have my ideas of good/bad/right/wrong in the moral realm just like anybody else.

Perhaps you should spend more time thinking and reading about this idea (that there is inherent dignity in a human person) that you dismiss as a mere "mental construct". It might help you understand the point of view. You are one of a small, small minority of people who thinks this way, you know? I don't even know where you would come up with such an idea it is so uncommon.

You're right, I meant to say irrelevant. You're mistaken in assuming that morals are dependent on your )or each individuals "ideas of god/bad, etc..."

Posted by: Janet at October 24, 2008 12:28 PM



Until I was 20 or so, I'd say I was vaguely Pro-Life, it wasn't a big issue at all for me, but I felt like if you don't want to have kids then don't get pregnant. There always was a "yuck" factor, as with many surgical things.

I got my first computer when I was 37, and soon saw how fired up people got in the abortion debate, so there was really something there.

In thinking about it, I didn't see a good enough reason to have abortion be illegal. Whether it's a case of poor planning, imprudence, etc., if a girl/woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be, would I forbid her having an abortion? No I wouldn't - I see that as something that is properly decided for herself by herself.

I realize you see a compelling reason to ban or further restrict abortion, but I don't - and in lieu of that, I ask myself, "Who are we to tell the pregnant woman that she can't have an abortion?"

My answer is that we don't really need to.

Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 12:21 PM

I am pleasantly surprised to hear this, and I think you should trust your gut instinct that was there for the first 37 years of your life. WOW. :) There are lots of women here who'd be very happy to hear that you'd stand up for the baby. The "Yuck Factor" was your brain telling you that there's something wrong with abortion. Please think about that.

Gotta run, now. Have a good day!

Posted by: Janet at October 24, 2008 12:34 PM


Doug, my typing is very poor today, sorry!

Posted by: Janet at October 24, 2008 12:35 PM


Jon: No, attempting to pervert the will of an expectant mother is a great evil.

Janet: This is true for you, but not for me, anyways - there's no objective truth on the subject of abortion, remember?

Jon said, that, Janet. There are "objective truths" about abortion, but the morality of anything is of course subjective - it's ideas, mental conceptions, it's feelings of the good/bad/right/wrong of it, etc.

The issue isn't "perverting" the will, it's whether or not we allow pregnant women to be as free, legally, as they are now.
.....


It's about what I want and I don't want a woman to be able to have an abortion. Your opinion is no more valid than mine. (Taken from the book of Doug Logic.) If you say most people want abortion to be legal, well I say, let's poll everyone in the U.S. I beg to differ.

"Valid" is in the eye of the beholder there, though, Janet. I realize that my opinion is not valid, to you, and that would not change even if a vast majority of people were on my side.

I do think the majority of Americans, anyway, want legal abortion to a point in gestation. The point is where the question is. For the third trimester, no argument - by far most people are against elective abortion then. For the first trimester, a majority is for it. Somewhere in the second trimester is where the 50/50 place will be....
.....


You know there are a lot of people who cheat on their taxes because they don't want to pay them. Should we make that legal? I bet over half the people in the country wouldn't mind that. We could people a choice, change the law, because taxes can be a big inconvenience that some people would rather not have to deal with, you know? (I'm not condoning it, nor do I cheat, I mention it just for discussion.) According to Doug Logic, It's what I want, compared to what you want. I think paying taxes should be a personal choice.

Down deep, people like the current system enough that they really wouldn't go for a cessation of mandatory taxes. So no, according to them - a goodly majority as I see it - we shouldn't make it legal to not pay taxes.

There is a compelling need for government - and I think most people agree with me, so no personal choice there.

Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 12:40 PM


Perhaps you should spend more time thinking and reading about this idea (that there is inherent dignity in a human person) that you dismiss as a mere "mental construct". It might help you understand the point of view. You are one of a small, small minority of people who thinks this way, you know? I don't even know where you would come up with such an idea it is so uncommon.

Janet, the fact that is indeed an idea is good enough for me.
.....


You're mistaken in assuming that morals are dependent on your or each individuals "ideas of god/bad, etc..."

No - the "good/bad/right/wrong" is always going to be in the opinion of some entity.

Morality does not have separate, physical existence - it's a concept of the mind.

Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 1:00 PM


I am pleasantly surprised to hear this, and I think you should trust your gut instinct that was there for the first 37 years of your life. WOW. :) There are lots of women here who'd be very happy to hear that you'd stand up for the baby. The "Yuck Factor" was your brain telling you that there's something wrong with abortion. Please think about that.

Janet, abortion never was an issue in our family. It wasn't that I thought abortion was a horrible wrong, just that blood, viscera, etc., has always had a "yuck" squeamish feeling to me.

Growing up, I saw many people who got married early, had kids or didn't, and ended up getting divorced, and there were numerous other instances where I got a feeling that lots of people rushed into stuff without really being sure if it was going to work out well.

I was pretty determined not to do that. Got married at age 41 and it's been good.

Through my 20s and 30s I was pretty much a liberal on social issues, but again - abortion was not a hot topic of debate in my circles at that time.

Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 1:05 PM


Doug @ 12:40,

The reason I quoted Jon at the beginning of my was because you said you agreed with him....

Who told you that feelings are the most important basis for living your life? It's not typical.


Posted by: Janet at October 24, 2008 4:26 PM


Janet: The reason I quoted Jon at the beginning of my was because you said you agreed with him....

It was not the issue. It's not at issue. It does not matter to what we have been talking about. It's a non-sequitur. There is matter and energy in the universe. If Jon said that, I'd agree too, but it's not part what were discussing.

You said, true for you, but not for me

I don't see where you were going, there - I doubt you mean that "attempting to pervert the will of an expectant mother is not a great evil."
.....

Who told you that feelings are the most important basis for living your life? It's not typical.

I think it's very typical, though I know what you mean - many people impute meaning in different ways.

Yet, they too operate as I do, as everybody does. From among our available options, we choose or try for that which we want the most, or that for which we have the least distaste.

So, whether a person is saying, "I'm doing this because God commands it," or gives another "religious" or "belief-related" reason, or they just say, "this is what I want," it all boils down to the same thing. Our feelings are our motivation.

Posted by: Doug at October 24, 2008 5:34 PM


Doug,
Oops, I was confused about who said what. Sorry!
. . . . . . . .

Posted by: Janet at October 24, 2008 11:13 PM


Patricia said, "There is nothing evil in the birth of a baby. If this is how you view babies, you are warped."

Doug replied, "Agreed, and I don't. But attempting to subvert the will of pregnant women...[is]...a great evil."

I disagreed, "No, attempting to pervert the will of an expectant mother is a great evil."

Doug replied, "Jon, I agree with you, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether we let her will decide things or not."

No, Doug, this particular conversation has been concerned with identifying that which is evil. Helping a woman carry her baby to term is not evil; it is good. Preventing her from heeding the advice of those who would pervert her will is also not evil; it is good. What is evil is the perversion of her will by perverted peers . Bad company corrupts good morals. Evil teachers are even worse.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" Gen. 2:1

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust all the days of your life."
Gen. 2:14

Posted by: Anonymous at October 25, 2008 10:01 AM


No, Doug, this particular conversation has been concerned with identifying that which is evil. Helping a woman carry her baby to term is not evil; it is good.

If the pregnancy is wanted, then I'm all for helping her - agreed that it's good. But it's not "evil" to end unwanted pregnancies. I know you differ, but there's no agreement on that "evil," and besides, there is also the evil of not allowing women the freedom they now have.

It's "evil" to not allow a woman with a wanted pregnancy to continue it, and "evil" to not allow a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to end it.
.....


Preventing her from heeding the advice of those who would pervert her will is also not evil; it is good. What is evil is the perversion of her will by perverted peers . Bad company corrupts good morals. Evil teachers are even worse.

Her will is what she wants. It's not "perverted" by other people. You may agree with her, or disagree, but I'm for letting her decide, while you are for attempting to force your will upon her, and that is what I and many others disagree with.

Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2008 11:09 AM


Americans amaze me! Even Christians think 'your will' is greater than obedience to God and his word?
Thou shalt not kill. What is there to debate about? God man, male and female he created them.... man shall leave... become one with his wife... Africa simply doesnt understand you.

Has God blessed you so much you think his precepts are now debatable?
WOW!

Posted by: Anonymous at October 27, 2008 7:00 AM


Thou shalt not kill.

You apparently do not know that the meaning of the commandment is not as simple as that, and that in many Bible versions "not murder" is what is said - the meaning of the commandment in all versions.

Posted by: Doug at October 27, 2008 9:58 AM


You shall not kill.

Doug claims to be an agnostic. Consider the source.

The Sixth Commandment is simple enough. The statement "You shall not kill" means the same thing as the statement "You shall not murder." To kill a human being is to murder him. To kill an animal is not to murder it. People may kill animals.

Jews and Christians have no problem understanding the Sixth Commandment. Doug does have a problem because he does not submit to God. Doug thinks that there might be good reasons to kill a human embryo or further developed human fetus.

For more information, read Genesis 9, set after the re-creation of the earth. To kill a human being is wrong because human beings originally resembled God. God considers that resemblance valuable.

Posted by: Jon at October 28, 2008 11:10 AM