Rush Limbaugh: Obama vs. Notre Dame’s Touchdown Jesus
My Mom told me Rush spoke on his show Friday about President Abortion’s votes against Born Alive while state senator in conjunction with Notre Dame inviting him to speak at its commencement.
Thankfully, reader Jeff G. sent me the transcript. Rush got the concept right, although Obama voted 4x against Born Alive, not 3…
The Most Anti-Life President in U.S. History to Speak at Notre Dame
March 27, 2009
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This Notre Dame business, I have to admit that I’m perplexed. Notre Dame is what? Notre Dame is the only university that I know of that has a giant mosaic of Jesus overlooking the football field, with arms up-spread as though Jesus is signaling touchdown. That’s why they call it Touchdown Jesus at Notre Dame. They’re a Catholic school….
They have a tradition of inviting new presidents to deliver the commencement address — and so they invited, in the spirit of this tradition, President Obama. Now, as we know, the Catholic Church’s official position on life is…LIFE. The official position on life is not abortion or “choice” or anything of the sort.
I know this is going to perhaps be offensive to some of you who are new to the program, but the truth is the truth, and this program is about truth. We attempt to find the truth. We secure the truth on this program, and the truth is, that President Obama — by virtue of his votes, as a member of the Illinois Senate, and as a member of the United States Senate – is perhaps the most anti-life president.
Well, there’s no question. He is the most anti-life president we have had in American history. This is a man who three times voted for infanticide in Illinois. He tried to excuse it any number of ways, but this is a man who voted three times, that if a baby survives an abortion, it may still be killed because of the mother’s original intent to abort it.
If the abortion is botched, the doctor can go ahead and complete the job outside the womb. He voted for it three times. I don’t care what your position on abortion is, but now we’re not talking about abortion, not when the child has been born outside the womb and is alive. And Obama voted three times to support the notion of infanticide….
The pro-abort crowd is a militant ideological group of people to whom abortion is a political advancement. It’s a political achievement. It’s rooted in feminism and liberalism, which is also inexorably linked. He has taken steps every chance he’s gotten to make abortion easier.
His nomination of Kathleen Sebelius… Well, his whole administration is made up of these people. I’m not Catholic, but I look at this and say, “This doesn’t make any sense. This does not pass the common sense test.” I understand the tradition of inviting newly elected presidents. I understand the historical nature of President Obama’s election. I understand all of that. But do none of our institutions value their principles anymore or their core beliefs or their religious foundations? Are they so easily discarded for public relations or political correctness? You know what’s even more stunning to me? This is — and I say this happily. What’s even more stunning is the degree to which this is being protested there, by students.
Now, some students are just upset that the whole commencement is going to become a circus because of this, but some of them are upset over the substance of it. There are a lot of Catholics who are upset about this. There are also a lot of Catholics who voted for Obama, knowing full-well everything that I just told you. But in an era where principles, core believes, and the essence of one’s being are so casually discarded, it is a shock to me to see something as venerable at Notre Dame University cast theirs aside for reasons of comparatively no substance. Political correctness, tradition. Does not the tradition of having the newly elected president do your commencement address pale in comparison to the foundational building blocks of the university and the church on which it’s founded? Are they going to have to cover up Touchdown Jesus the day Obama makes his speech? How could they not?
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: One more thing about this Notre Dame business. You know, ladies and gentlemen, it’s not just that Obama has the most outrageous anti-life record and agenda of any president in history, it is that they’re going to give him an honorary degree. There are some people who wouldn’t really care about the commencement, but the honorary degree, that’s sending other people over the top. Of course, the honorary degree is automatic for a president showing up to do the commencement address. There’s a lot going on behind the scenes at Notre Dame. Protests are being planned. Some faculty and former faculty are really mad about it, but they’re not going public yet. Notre Dame is not backing down on any of this. The times when people stand to assert their principles just boggles my mind. Now, here’s something else. For those of you — Protestants and Catholics alike, and even you Jewish people, I mean everybody, while all this is going on, you need to know that the Obama administration is now thinking of rescinding what’s called the “conscious clause.”
Right now 15% of American hospitals are Catholic hospitals. Rescinding the conscious clause, this is currently under comment period ’til April 9th, of all days, that’s Good Friday, or close to, bad Thursday, whatever. The comment period here going on until April 9th, if they rescind the conscious clause, if you’ve never heard of it, you’ll understand what it is here in mere moments — rescinding the conscious clause would force Catholic and religious pro-life health professionals to seek other careers, possibly shut down Catholic hospitals that would refuse to provide abortion services. Rescinding the clause would require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Now, we wonder how this fits with the universal health care message. So while the Obama administration is actually thinking of rescinding the conscious clause — the conscious clause means that I can’t willingly perform an abortion because of my conscience, I’m Catholic. Catholic doctors have an exemption right now, federally funded places. That’s going to be taken away, they’re thinking of taking it away forcing Catholic and religious pro-life health professionals, people, to seek other careers and maybe shut down some Catholic hospitals. All this and Notre Dame is not backing down. Notre Dame is holding firm to their invitation.
END TRANSCRIPT
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I have a lot of respect for Rush. I remember listening to Howard Stern unleash a tirade on him a time or 2.
I’ve always loved Rush.
Cant wait for the obligatory “haha! you guys listen to Rush and do what he says. Stupid Repuglicans! Zing!”
The truth hurts doesn’t it all you pro-abort Catholics?
Be men and women of God and repent from this evil…..reject Obama as the demonically inspired person he is or blaspheme the Christ you claim as Savior and Lord. Choose whom you will serve. May the word of the Lord convict you.
Matthew 12:24-26
24But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.”
25And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand.
26″If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?
I don’t believe Obama’s ever heard of overkill, has he. Or Notre Dame for that matter.
I still can’t believe Notre Dame hasn’t canceled the Abortion President from speaking at the commencement. Sure it would be honorable to have the President of the US speak, but not this one, not the anti-life President! There is no hope in him changing his abortion views, having him speak is not going to change those views/policies, why continue to give him any recognition, let alone an honorary degree?? I follow you on twitter&share your blog feed,keep up the fight!
Not sure why Rush calls it the conscious clause.
Should be “conscience clause.”
Still time to give one’s opinion about rescinding
the Bush administration’s protections for the medical
community.
http://www.regulations.gov
Regarding the quote of the day:
“Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously.
~ Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, honored March 28 in Houston by America’s leading abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, as quoted by NewsBusters, March 29”
People like Clinton and Obama see these appearances and awards and accolades as being about them and their narcissistic personalities. They seek approval from men and are willing to sacrifice their very souls in compromise to their evil agendas.
Obama will just see his appearance at Notre Dame as a tacit wink from the Catholic Community as approval to continue his radical abortion agenda. Father Jenkins is enabling a very evil person and causing division in his own church which is in and of itself a damnable action.
I can’t believe that people like Father Jenkins can’t figure this out. Or, he is a closet pro-abort who gives lip service to the Catholic teachings on life.
As the scripute answers every question, God knew that stuff like this would happen and gave very stern warnings to any that would yoke themselves to evil while blasheming the name of God.
Jude 1 (New American Standard Bible)
1Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ:
2May mercy and peace and love (F)be multiplied to you.
3Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all (K)handed down to the saints.
4For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
5Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.
6And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
8Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.
9But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
10But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed.
11Woe to them! For they have gone (AJ)the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.
12These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted;
13wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.
14It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,
15to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
16These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage.
17But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by (BE)the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,
18that they were saying to you, “In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.”
19These are the ones who cause divisions, orldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit.
20But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit,
21keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.
22And have mercy on some, who are doubting;
23save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.
24Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy,
25to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
I wish people like Rush, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck would talk about the abortion issue more. They hardly ever do, yet I know all three are pro life.
I think there are still a lot of people who do not realize just how radical BO is on abortion. Even many so called “pro choice” people draw the line at late term abortions not to mention born alive.
Thank you Rush for talking about this.
“Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously.”
That’s a scary quote from Hillary Clinton but not a surprise. I’m sure her boss feels the same way.
God bless anyone who is pro life! We are all going to be dead a whole lot longer that we’re alive. A low class act like Bill Maher and company can keep on mocking “the SKY GHOST”{GOD}..but judgement day is coming for them.
“By their fruits ye shall know them.”
This includes Catholic priests and all others who fraudulently wear the collar and are heads of large institutions who choose compromise over conviction. Their judgement will be even more severe.
They easily forget they were given these positions as stewards of the truth but have forgotten their first love.
Disclaimer:
If you are an atheist, agonostic, pagan, humanist and bible passages annoy and bore you then skip over this post, it is NOT for you. It will hold no more significance for you than reading a Doonesbury comic strip.
Rush Limbaugh nailed it:
For the sake of the ‘tradition’ of inviting new presidents to speak at Notre Dame commencement, Father Jenkins, sets aside not only the rules of the Catholic Church, but the commandments of God.
These passages are NOT taken out of context. Jesus was indicting the religious leaders of his day for their hypocrisy in holding their ‘tradition’ not only above the ‘law’, but above the Spirit of the ‘law’.
Matt 15:1-9
15:1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition ? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6 he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition . 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'”
NIV
Mark 7:8-9,11-13
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”
9 And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions !
11 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
NIV
I could cut and paste these passages from 10 different translations but, having already reviewed them, it would only be redundant in corroborating they are not taken out of context and in context they are an indictment agains the ‘religious’ leaders at Notre Dame.
yor bro ken
“God bless anyone who is pro life! We are all going to be dead a whole lot longer that we’re alive. A low class act like Bill Maher and company can keep on mocking “the SKY GHOST”{GOD}..but judgement day is coming for them.
Posted by: Heather at March 30, 2009 4:45 PM”
Heather:
Actually, as a follower of Christ you will live forever and it will be much, much better than anything that we have experienced here on this earth. I can’t wait for Heaven.
Yes, Obama has heard of “overkill”- it’s called killing babies who survive PBA.
Secondly, what’s happened at ND is that the underbelly of Catholicism has been shown. The CC in the West is completely rotted from within. Mostly made up of acquiescing “cafeteria” Catholics (usually middle-aged) who have never truly known their faith to begin with and who have innoculated their offspring with enough “catholicity” to ensure they are likewise.
My hope: the deadweight is shed with time and the younger more faithful Catholics rise up to evangelize and renew the culture.
George Neumayr is spot on with his op-ed:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/27/touchdown-obama
His Man, how true. Someone once told me “This is their best heaven.” Meaning people who believe in nothing moral at all or a God of their own design. “I can do whatever I want and still make it to heaven.” OR those who say “I believe that the lights just go out when we die.” I can’t wait for heaven either. It’s going to be great!!!
angel, I was glad to see that Neumayr mentioned the Alinsky connection and surprised that Rush didn’t.
“Yes, Obama has heard of “overkill”- it’s called killing babies who survive PBA.”
I don’t think any babies are surviving PBA. :( That one’s too brutal. Other methods of abortion, yes, such as early induction. And in times past, saline and prostaglandin abortions.
About Notre Dame – the Catholic Church is eroding. If I can even say that. Up until recent history, the Catholic Church was a terrible antichrist (the Inquisitions, etc.). So, to see such moral ambiguity – it doesn’t surprise me. There is a percentage of the Catholic Church that is staunchly prolife and thank goodness that includes the Pope, but it looks like a new Catholic Church is emerging – a prochoice one.
Glenn Beck DID talk about this, but he thinks the protesters are wrong since Obama isn’t Catholic.
Is Hannity pro-life? I always thought he was pro-choice.
Truthfully, people have been complaining that Notre Dame isn’t quite Catholic for a while. Alumnus have written that the students are Catholic in SPITE of the Notre Dame staff.
I’m glad Rush is talking about this-shedding light on BO’s death agenda!-but I’m also disappointed he doesn’t know the significance of Maundy Thursday. this is prophetic.
Good catch, Gapper. I missed it too.
Glenn Beck DID talk about this, but he thinks the protesters are wrong since Obama isn’t Catholic.
The fact that BO isn’t Catholic has nothing to do with it. ND is Catholic and as such should not have a radical pro abort like BO speak there.
Is Hannity pro-life? I always thought he was pro-choice.
Hannity talked a lot about BO’s radical abortion beliefs during the campaign. I’m quite sure he is pro life and not pro death (there is no such thing as “pro choice” as far as abortion supporters are concerned)
Shame on Notre Lame!
Using “radical” to describe someone’s support for a legal procedure like abortion is pretty ridiculous. The difference between Obama’s pro-choice stance and what might be described as a “moderate” position on abortion, is a difference of degrees at best.
I also question why partial birth abortion (or a doctor “finishing off” the fetus after its left the womb in the event of a failed abortion) would be considered more egregious or abominable than abortions peformed during the first trimester if the pro-life position is that all abortion constitutes murder. Murder is murder, right? I think even recognizing a substantive difference is an error of reason on the part of pro-lifers because it tacitly acknowledges that “early” abortions and “late” abortions are not morally equivalent, or at the very least, are different in terms of repulsiveness.
Czar: “I think even recognizing a substantive difference is an error of reason on the part of pro-lifers because it tacitly acknowledges that “early” abortions and “late” abortions are not morally equivalent, or at the very least, are different in terms of repulsiveness.”
You are making an error in reasoning yourself czar. You confuse the repulsion at an act with the repulsion at the LACK of repulsion at an act. Partial birth abortion is no more repulsive an act than any other form of abortion, but the immorality of the act is much more obvious. The fact that Obama does not recognize the more obvious murder is a more grevious ethical lapse than if Obama only failed to recognize abortion.
Additionaly, you are assuming that any difference between partial birth abortion and early term abortion is unsubstantial in the level of “sin.” Early term abortion still takes into account the autonomy of the mother, which although is not sufficient to justify abortion, it at the very least complicates the issue. This complication can skew viewpoints and even deserves a hearty debate. Partial birth abortion does not maintain the bodily autonomy argument and only appeals to eugenics or economy. In a nutshell, the motives behind both crimes are at times different and the latter motives driving partial birth abortion are even more henious.
So to summarize, the acts themselves are equally repulsive, but the motives behind partial birth abortions and the failure to recognize the more obvious nature of the repulsion in parth birth abortions lead to the conclusion that Obama is a sick individual for not opposing the injustice.
I will say you did make a reasonable attempt to discredit the pro-life argument, something that is sorely needed from the pro-choice side of the argument around here.
Up until recent history, the Catholic Church was a terrible antichrist (the Inquisitions, etc.).
No sorry, the CC is NOT the antichrist, although I know some who do think it is.
Like all earthly institutions, the CC is made up of “fallen” humans who are prone to mistakes and sinfulness.
But to deliberately embrace the sin of abortion, in the sense of promoting abortion as some very public Catholics do (Pelosi, Sebelius, Kennedy etc) and to publicly reward proabortion politicians as ND is doing is just wrong.
They do not deserve the title of “Catholic”.
Quite simply, we are reaping the rewards of 30 years of poor instruction in the faith.
I think Hannity is one of those “exception pro-choicers” – if the child was conceived during rape or incest… it’s okay to kill him.
Remember his run-in with Fr. Euteneuer?
http://www.pro-life.com/sl_2007-03-12.html
Murder is murder, right? I think even recognizing a substantive difference is an error of reason on the part of pro-lifers because it tacitly acknowledges that “early” abortions and “late” abortions are not morally equivalent, or at the very least, are different in terms of repulsiveness.
Posted by: czar at March 30, 2009 8:31 PM
I don’t believe for one moment that many prolifers are somehow “tacitly acknowledging that early abortions and late abortions are not morally equivalent” by their repulsion of PBA.
I can only speak for myself, but one likes to hope that at some point, the abortionist recognizes that he is killing a baby. If he can’t recognize this while dismembering and counting the pieces of the child in the womb, we rather hoped he would see it when the baby is half delivered and then killed.
Of course what we do see is that whether the abortionist dismembers the baby before the cervix or after makes no difference to him/her. The purpose is to make sure the baby is dead, if not in abortion, then afterwards by whatever means achieves this end.
Another great way of phrasing it Angel.
“Finishing off a fetus” has to be done before it’s fully born, czar. Outside the mother’s body it’s no longer a fetus. It’s a baby deserving of the same human rights and protections that you and I enjoy. At least it is to all but the most radical of proaborts. You are extending the proabort argument to murder and deny human rights in the womb to unwanted babies outside the womb too. That’s radical to most people, except of course, the most radically proabort zealots.
“Finishing off a fetus” has to be done before it’s fully born, czar
I meant in order to meet the definition of fetus.
“You are making an error in reasoning yourself czar. You confuse the repulsion at an act with the repulsion at the LACK of repulsion at an act. Partial birth abortion is no more repulsive an act than any other form of abortion, but the immorality of the act is much more obvious. The fact that Obama does not recognize the more obvious murder is a more grevious ethical lapse than if Obama only failed to recognize abortion.”
Well this is kind of a strange argument. The problem here is not with partial birth abortion itself, but with Obama’s not finding it worse than early-trimester abortion? I also don’t see how the “immorality” of partial birth abortion is more obvious than the “immorality” of early-trimester abortion if both are regarded as murder, which as far I can tell is the prevailing stance for the pro-life movement, or, conversely, neither are regarded as murder, by the pro-choice movement. The concept of “murder” and its subsequent “wrongness” seems like a pretty straightforward concept. What I’m trying to get at here is placing different forms of abortion or even murder on different points along a continuum of “wrongness” is counter-productive to the “pro-life” cause and betrays a conviction that some abortions are worse than other abortions, which is a less defensible argument for people who consider all abortion to be murder.
“Additionaly, you are assuming that any difference between partial birth abortion and early term abortion is unsubstantial in the level of “sin.”
I didn’t say anything about the level of “sin.” I’m simply looking at this as how the pro-life movement as a whole considers the matter, which seems to be that abortion is murder and murder is bad, no matter what form it comes in (even in the “murder” of days-old embryos, apparently). Any concept of “sin” and how it’s measured would be something specific to an individual church, religion, or person, which is not what I’m getting at.
“Early term abortion still takes into account the autonomy of the mother, which although is not sufficient to justify abortion, it at the very least complicates the issue. This complication can skew viewpoints and even deserves a hearty debate. Partial birth abortion does not maintain the bodily autonomy argument and only appeals to eugenics or economy. In a nutshell, the motives behind both crimes are at times different and the latter motives driving partial birth abortion are even more henious.”
Well that’s certainly a subjective judgement. I find it hard to believe that murder for the purposes of convenience would really be considered “less heinous” than murder for the purposes of “eugenics or economy.”
“Finishing off a fetus” has to be done before it’s fully born, czar. Outside the mother’s body it’s no longer a fetus. It’s a baby deserving of the same human rights and protections that you and I enjoy. At least it is to all but the most radical of proaborts. You are extending the proabort argument to murder and deny human rights in the womb to unwanted babies outside the womb too. That’s radical to most people, except of course, the most radically proabort zealots.”
But if abortion is murder and murder is wrong, then even if someone possesses “human rights and protections,” it shouldn’t be any more or less wrong to kill them than to commit an abortion, right? Why even draw a distinction between abortion, no matter what stage, and murder, no matter who the victim? Why make the argument against abortion any more complex than a simple belief that “abortion = murder = wrong”? My impression of the pro-life movement is that self-described pro-life people consider all abortion wrong, but “partial birth abortion” just a little bit (or a lot) wronger, which is really a stretch of logic if the entire argument against abortion is predicated on no more complex a concept than that it is murder.
czar, it’s all the same.
Take the old “infanticide” smear that failed so miserably last year and recycle it through the most hated person in the US. Should work well.
I know I’m the first one to jump on Robert and his Wonderful Wondering Diatribes, but I really feel like I need to get some things off my chest.
There are so many people in this world who not only support abortion, but support it with glee. My friend, who came to my wedding and I like very much, is going to a party hosted by planned parenthood. We’re talking a “let’s get drunk and talk about how cool abortion is” party. His rational? He likes alcohol and a good party, and he’s pro-choice so why not?
Seriously, why not? How have we become so dead as a society that we can even think about throwing a party to celebrate abortion. Even those who are pro-choie must have some moral qulams about taking the life of another,even if they don’t consider that life to be equal to a born person’s. Right?
Nothing makes me more upset than someone who seems to move even beyond flippancy in their support for abortion. It isn’t a happy thing. Dear God, even if you believe that a woman’s right to bodily domain overrides a child’s right to life, how can you celebrate?
It’s like celebrating the fact that we’re not legally obligated to help someone who fell into a river. Would you go to a “let’s all get drunk while we talk about how cool it is to let someone drown” party?
Seriously, after seeing the way some people write about this stuff, I wouldn’t be suprised. Nothing would suprise me now. We kill our children in the womb. We kill the disabled. We kill for “cures” we kill to cure. We kill, and kill, and kill.
And then someone throws a party.
That is very profound Lauren.
Our Lord said it would be this way near the end which seems to be approaching exponentially.
The warning was given for our good.
Lauren,
Killing children in the womb is easy when you come from a self-centered minset. The misery of the baby and/or the father are of no consequence or concern to pro-abort women.
I can understand doing it. I mean, people kill each other all the time. It’s even easier when you don’t have to look at the person you’re killing.
What I don’t understand is the celebration.
All sorts of organizations and groups throw parties. That doesn’t necessarily imply a “celebration” of their objectives so much as an opportunity for like-minded people to get together and get hammered. Unless of course they were serving their bloody mary’s as “bloody fetuses.” And for the record, if there was an organized movement to make it mandatory to rescue people who have fallen into a river (which, actually, there are several such laws on the books in a handful of states called Good Samaritan Laws), there would probably be an organized resistance too, and groups uniting under this cause would possibly hold parties too.
Czar: “Well this is kind of a strange argument. The problem here is not with partial birth abortion itself, but with Obama’s not finding it worse than early-trimester abortion?”
Are you not able to read? I never said the issue was that Barack did not find it MORE repulsive. When did I ever use that word? Here is my exacr quote.
Oliver :”You confuse the repulsion at an act with the repulsion at the LACK of repulsion at an act”
I didnt say “MORE” repulsive, but repulsive period. Come on now, I was starting to like you. Please be careful of the huge assumptions you bring to the table Czar.
Czar: “I also don’t see how the “immorality” of partial birth abortion is more obvious than the “immorality” of early-trimester abortion if both are regarded as murder, which as far I can tell is the prevailing stance for the pro-life movement, or, conversely, neither are regarded as murder, by the pro-choice movement. The concept of “murder” and its subsequent “wrongness” seems like a pretty straightforward concept.”
Do you not see how the immorality of murdering an infant is more obvious than the immorality of abortion? They are also the same, yet pro-choicers (for the most part) abhor the former. I guess I can spell it out again for you, as I have already done it before.
Partial birth abortion does not infringe on a mother’s right to bodily autonomy. Early term abortion does. Therefore there is another conflicting right to consider during early term abortion that complicates the discussion. There is no such obstacle for partial birth abortion, nor is there for general infanticide. Because of this simplification, there is a greater clarity.
What about that was hard to get the first time Czar?
Czar: “What I’m trying to get at here is placing different forms of abortion or even murder on different points along a continuum of “wrongness” is counter-productive to the “pro-life” cause and betrays a conviction that some abortions are worse than other abortions, which is a less defensible argument for people who consider all abortion to be murder.”
Right, and if you read my post (which you obviously did not) you would see that my argument did not presume that partial birth abortion is any way a less moral act than any murder.
Czar: “I didn’t say anything about the level of “sin.”….Any concept of “sin” and how it’s measured would be something specific to an individual church, religion, or person, which is not what I’m getting at.”
Why do you think I put the word sin in quotations? Did you think I actually meant sin in terms of the Christian belief? Did you not look at the context of my sentence out of curiousity at the very least?
Here is the quote in context Czar.
Oliver:”Additionaly, you are assuming that any difference between partial birth abortion and early term abortion is unsubstantial in the level of “sin.” Early term abortion still takes into account the autonomy of the mother, which although is not sufficient to justify abortion, it at the very least complicates the issue. This complication can skew viewpoints and even deserves a hearty debate. Partial birth abortion does not maintain the bodily autonomy argument and only appeals to eugenics or economy. In a nutshell, the motives behind both crimes are at times different and the latter motives driving partial birth abortion are even more henious.”
Notice that even though I said sin, I placed it in quotation marks and never once refered to any level of religious authority. What did I in fact refer to Czar? Specifically SECULAR MORAL authority. Are you trying to do this on purpose out of a lack of argument?
Czar: “Well that’s certainly a subjective judgement. I find it hard to believe that murder for the purposes of convenience would really be considered “less heinous” than murder for the purposes of “eugenics or economy.””
Where did you see murder out of the purpose of convenience? Besides, the entire discusion is about whether or not the action IS murder. Our problem is not that Obama hates partial birth abortion insufficiently. Our problem is that Obama does not even recognize partial birth abortion as murder in any form. The question, once again, has nothing to do with the degree of the crime.
The “justification” behind early term abortion is based on an appeal to the protection of individual rights. The “justification” behind partial birth abortion is only an appeal to economy or eugenics. Whether or not you support the motives, at the very least standard abortion appeals to SOME form of justification.
Consider a “thought experiment” (as I saw it called recently.)
A man kills another man to protect his property.
On the other side of the world, a man kills another man for the sheer pleasure of destroying another human.
Group A believes that it is imoral to kill anyone unless to save your own life.
Group B believes that it is moral to kill someone to protect your property.
Although Group A and B would disagree over whether or not the first man commited a moral transgression, there would obviously be no debate over whether or not the second man commited a moral transgression. If Group A is correct and the first man also commited a murder, it would be easy to see that both murders in and of themselves are equally immoral. However, if a third Group C, holding all the same basic premises as both Group A and B, came along to support the second man, Group A could safely call Group C more ethically in the “wrong” than Group B, seeing as the second killing was much more obvious a murder based on their shared premises. Additionally, Group A could concede that although both killings are murders and in and of themselves equally imoral, the second killing was driven by an individual with a more obviously evil motive.
So to summarize….
Obama does not see partial birth abortion to be imoral. This is particularly disgusting because PBA has fewer ethical complications mitigating the action and is more clearly unethical. It is NOT because PBA is in itself more clearly unethical. Additionally, PBA is driven by a less ethically sound motivation than standard abortion. This again promotes the repulsion of the event as a whole, both motive and the action.
Its really simple Czar. Just read what I said this time please.
Czar: “My impression of the pro-life movement is that self-described pro-life people consider all abortion wrong, but “partial birth abortion” just a little bit (or a lot) wronger, which is really a stretch of logic if the entire argument against abortion is predicated on no more complex a concept than that it is murder.”
You have developed this impression and then used it to further your own argument that this impression is true. This is circular reasoning. You have now three times responded to posters under the assumption that we feel this way. We do not. It is clearly written in the posts. You simplistic view of morality is probably a big hindrince in understanding the “subtlety” of the argument. Heres the basic premise we, and I dunno 99.9% of the rest of the population, are working off of.
There are some things that are equally “bad” but not equally recognizable as “bad.”
Hopefully you can stop making your flawed inferences about the pro-life movement after reading this post carefully.
After reading some of thee comments, I can see that the same mentality that ignored the plight of the Jews in Germany during the 1930s, that ignored the sufferings of the slaves in America in the 19th century, and that could care less about the man robbed and left for dead on the side of the road, is alive and well today.
If we care not for the least of our brothers, then what kind of people are we?
And if we support politicians who care not for these the least of our brothers, then we will reap the devastation that they will sow.
JJ, Like “Sing A Little Louder”
A document published by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops titled “Catholics in Political Life” stated:
“The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions,”
The Notre Dame bishop who is defiantly, stupidly, stubborly standing by his mistake, inviting the most pro-abort president ever to not only speak at Notre Dame but to also be honored, is clearly in violation of the standards set by the USCCB.
(Hmmm… maybe the abortion industry has some info about the bishop that they are using to turn him into their puppet?)
Czar – pro-lifers see killing babies before birth as equally heinous as killing babies after birth. It is the ‘pro-choice’, ‘moderates’, ‘undecideds’, and even some of the pro-aborts, who make a distinction between the two. Only the most extremist pro-aborts condone infanticide, Obama being one of those extremists. Even Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy disagreed with Obama regarding the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
When pro-lifers point out the fact that Obama and other pro-abort extremists condone such barbarism, they are trying to educate and appeal to the morals of the majority of non-pro-life citizens – all those ‘moderates’, ‘pro-choicers’, etc., those citizens who do draw the line at birth. Pro-lifers are not saying that abortion is more acceptable than infanticide to pro-lifers.
Czar, you truncate in which way these people are like minded. What do they agree upon? That a mother should be able to kill her child. We aren’t talking a little get together to talk stratagy. We’re talking coctails and clever themes.
The fact that you defend such acts speaks volumes.
Oh, and on a completely tangental note: Good Samaritan laws don’t force someone to help another person. They protect the helper from being sued. You’re confusing it with “duty to rescue” laws which are common in Europe.
Dang it! Oliver at 8:48 was me. I could have sworn I changed my name…
I can understand doing it. I mean, people kill each other all the time. It’s even easier when you don’t have to look at the person you’re killing.
What I don’t understand is the celebration.
I know what you mean, Lauren. Since sidewalk counseling, I’ve seen the way some men and women ACT at the clinic. A lot of them smirk of laugh at the baby Malachi sign. Some are on their cell phones, chatting away and grinning as they pass by. Creepy behavior indeed.
Culture of death is here.
“I’ve seen the way some men and women ACT at the clinic….Creepy behavior indeed.”
———————————————
I guess the creepiest behavior I remember was when a guy drove by us at the PP in Aurora during a 40 days for Life campaign.
It was about midnight and a group of pro-lfers were quietly praying with a priest..and there was this guy, driving like a bat out of hell (excuse the pun) and shouted blasphemies and vile curses that made my skin crawl…this was exactly at the time the priest brought out the Host for adoration…then he turned his car around and made a second pass at us before disappearing into the night…shouting/ cursing all the way out.
Made me realize who really was behind all this madness.
You can close your eyes and hear the Erkel nostril snort.
Then just imagine a ‘djo’ or ‘ugh’ or ‘ehh’ or an ‘ahh’ or two.
yor bro ken
RSD,
“Made me realize who really was behind all this madness.”
Great lead in to the Erkel in Chief.
yor bro
Ken LOL. funny pic..
Has anyone visited the website of Obama’s teleprompter? Its a hoot.
http://www.baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com
Mary, LOL! and I love the “It’s a hoot!” LOL!
Good Morning Heather,
Did you visit the website? The official site of the TOTUS for the POTUS
Czar:
Killing a human being who has not committed a crime is murder. It is equally wrong whether that human being is seconds old (zygote), days old (blastocyst), weeks old (embryo), or months old (fetus), or just born, or 97 years old. (Learn your dehumanizing developmental terms).
The reason that the pro-life cause particularly points out the process and results of later abortion is because we are trying to change the hearts and minds of those who are not pro-life. Seeing something that looks like a newborn being dismembered has a greater effect on people (who often have had newborns of their own) than seeing something that looks like a clump of cells being destroyed. I once saw a blastocyst being destroyed on the news, and I was shocked and horrified and sickened and saddened by the knowledge that a child was being killed. I have lost my own children when they were as young as 10 days old, and I have completely changed my lifestyle to try and prevent it from happening again when I learned that it might be possible.
The other thing that some pro-lifers have been alluding to is the bodily autonomy argument. According to this argument, a woman has a right to decide that she does not want her body to support the fetus. This argument, many admit, has some merit, though most of us would not concede that the woman’s right to autonomy supercedes her child’s right to life. However, if this is one’s position, there is no reason for late-term abortions. Instead, if a woman wanted to no longer carry her child, she could choose to give birth to the baby by induced labor or C-section. All efforts would be made to save the baby and the mother. Babies born in the late second trimester and the third trimester could be saved. Also, destructive research on pre-embryos would not be permitted. So one of the major arguments of the pro-choice-to-kill-unborn-and-sometimes-recently-born-children movement, that a woman ought to be able to have her child killed because she should not need to have the child using her body, provides no rationale for late-term abortion. In these cases, there is no rationale other than killing the baby. These cases are pointed out not because they are more morally repugnant, but because they go beyond the stated case of even those who think killing babies is sometimes okay.
I know that you just want to poke holes in the arguments, not understand them, but there you go.
By the way, you do not have to keep supporting evil. You can turn to Jesus Christ, who is a power greater even than Satan. He can protect you from Satan and give you the strength to stand up to evil, even if you are deeply entrenched in it. He is not willing that any should perish, and before the earth was created, He knew your name. He offers you eternal life and companionship, should you turn from doing what is wrong and flee to Him who is Right.
LOL! kbhvac-you made my day with that picture!
It’s like Obama is still campaigning. He’s behaving like a movie star.
Yeah, Heather…my wife and I were just commenting on this the other day. He’s got time to write a children’s book, appear on talk shows, make celebrity appearances everywhere and wasting Air Force One fuel..
I guess this is what president abortion calls “Change”.
Um. Is there a Vice President? What was his name…ah…um..oh…Joe Biden?? Is he a working VP?
RSD and Carla, LOL!! I mean, the campain is OVER! What is this man doing?? WHAT?? Unemployment is in double digits and he’s going on LENO?? Is this man serious? How anyone can take him seriously is beyond me!!!!!!!!!!!
The man is nothing more than an over inflated EGO maniac, attention seeking wh*re!!
Carla 12;26pm
You sound just like Obama without his teleprompter.
Mary, LOL!!!!!!! I also believe Obama to be a sociopath.
And BIDEN, Does the man ever stop grinning from ear to ear??? Just an obsevation. What is so great, and where IS he?
Has anyone visited baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com yet?
“KEEP the CHANGE” !!
Mary, I’m on my way there….RSD, the change will be what’s left in our pockets when he’s finished with us! LOL!
@ RSD, I’ve just given it a little more thought. It was only CHANGE for himself and his family. A big C$ange$$$$$!! He’s just tickled pink to be in the limelight. He missed his calling. He should have become an actor. That’s the only thing he’s doing in the white house anyway.
Mary, you were right. What a hoot! ROFL!! Thanks for the link.
Having Obama speak at Notre Dame is all about several influential Chicago business men fighting to have the Olympics held in Chicago. These business men would stand to make a fortune by picking up the insurance to the Olympics, the building rights, the advertising and memorabilia,etc., not to mention having their names being immortalized in history for bringing the Olympics to Chicago.
The sadness of Obama speaking at Notre Dame is not only honoring our pro-death president, but also about money, greed, ego.
These Chicago business men have extremely close ties with Notre Dame, some are alumni.
I pray for God’s perfect Mercy and for God’s perfect Justice in this matter!