Obama at Notre Dame: An Opportunity We Should Not Waste
Powers and principalities have always held human life cheap, and throughout history the Catholic Church has passionately, correctly, and consistently preached on the sanctity of life, at every stage. In an age where the human embryo is exploited in the name of science, where enlightened conceit presumes to judge another’s “quality” of life and socialized medicine betrays an instinct to put a healthy bottom line before a struggling life, the church’s unwavering insistence for life could stand to be voiced anew and heard with fresh ears. The publicity surrounding Notre Dame’s invitation to Obama is gifting the church with a teachable moment; smart churchmen and women should take this opportunity to speak the pro-life position in a loving and pastoral manner that depends less on intense sloganeering and more on patient exposition.
Who lives and who dies, the intrinsic value of human worth, and the undeniable force of love that exists within the mystery of a life wholly lived should never have become — for nearly 40 years — the stuff of placards and bumper-sticker speak; the matter is too profound and too exquisitely messy for such reduction. Abortion rights supporters stopped listening to the argument for life after they saw their hundredth “Abortion Kills Children” sign, and eyeroll-inducing demands that rosaries be taken off of ovaries never did persuade a pro-lifer away.
The argument for life, though more urgent than ever, has grown stagnant for too many, and both battle-weary sides are too pinched and irritable to tolerate more of the same.
Neither Notre Dame nor Barack Obama should claim surprise at the resistance to his speaking there — and an argument could be made that a president who wholeheartedly endorses bench-created law is a dubious choice for an honorary law degree. But the Catholics and bishops who are registering their disapproval have before them a chance to work with the Holy Spirit, by trusting that same Spirit to use events in ways we may not immediately understand — for God’s purpose — and by praying for wisdom, guidance, and, yes, a loving temperament to their instruction.
This event is not the end of the world and it is not the end of the story — as we see in Deuteronomy, the battle for life over death has been raging for 4,000 years — but perhaps Obama at Notre Dame could be the beginning of the pro-life Catholic Church articulating its authoritative teaching in a manner so calm, so pastoral, and so attractive that others may be enticed to finally listen and that hearts may begin to turn. I pray that it is so.
The reason the Pro-Choice (Pro-Death) movement is so strong is that Pro-Life advocates haven’t done enough “sloganeering” or enough intense opposition. Defending human life in a “loving and pastoral manner” has been crushed by the shrill screaming mob who have captured the national platform.
We know President Obama’s position on this subject, we don’t have to listen to him articulate them from the heart of Catholic education.
The first great step to get the Pro-Life message back on the national stage: Disinvite Obama.
A non-Catholic in a Catholic family.
Elizabeth, I totally agree with your last paragraph. Having said that, I still don’t think he should have been invited to give a commencement speech, and to be honored with a degree by Our Lady’s Catholic University. A debate, a seminar etc at another time. I wish everyone could read Fr. Roger Landry’s words on this:
http://tinyurl.com/cr533n
So calm, so pastoral, so attractive, so cogently articulated…
We catholics must stand up and take advantage of this crisis. Sound familiar? I have written to Fr Jenkins, I have signed a petition and have email the school newspaper. We need to be heard on this matter. Obama will be responsible of the death of millions due to his abortion views. We need not associate ourselves with that stance. He does not deserve a doctorate from ND. And it is not going to be dialogue like Jenkins says. He will speak to the graduation class. This is unfair to them. We need to stand up against secularism in the country or we will lose it.
Perhaps if the bishops and pastors had been teaching for the last 40 years we wouldn’t be in this situation.
While I don’t support a loud and angry demonstration, to avoid expressing disapproval over this travesty will only cause the pro-abortion side to claim endorsement by a Catholic institution and marginalize those in the pro-life movement.
I will be very surprised if President Obama is conciliatory. I instead imagine he will defend his views with vigor, including lots of sob stories, and he will insinuate that those who don’t agree with him really don’t care about the poor.
The entire graduating class should turn their backs on him when he speaks.
Giggles the kow-towing Clown goes well beyond pro-abortion. He supported infanticide when he was in the Illinois Senate. Notre Dame students pay their tuition (or their parents do), so they can make up their own minds. I wouldn’t waste my time listening to someone who voted to throw live-born human beings into a garbage can. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t waste my time listening to someone who voted to throw still-born human beings into a garbage can.
Please, the students at Notre Dame care more about football then yet another attempt by organized religion to turn our secular democracy into a theocracy.
Maybe Catholics ought to be concerned with priests who continue to diddle little boys than a commencement address.
#5. That’s good, but I think that quietly walking out would make a better statement.
It’s amazing the “sanctity of life” crowd on this site has no problem with torturing prisoners who haven’t even been formally charged with a crime.
#7, you don’t really care about any of this, you just came here to spout hate, right? All priests are “diddling little boys” and I guess all of our armed forces are “torturing prisoners” like at Abu Ghraib. Why don’t you grow up?
#9 You too. Your idea that all Catholics support torture is idiotic and poorly informed. Grow up.
It’s also amazing that the “sanctity of life” crowd has no problem with the pope telling the world that condoms are not effective in preventing AIDS.
How many innocent people do you think are going to die from AIDS this year because they’ve been instructed not to use condoms? How much you want to bet it outnumbers abortions?
The Eucharist is ALWAYS the answer. Maybe Bishop D’Arcey should organize a (peaceful) Eucharist procession outside, along with a rosary prayer chain, no signs.
I will guarantee you in advance things will “go the pro life way.” Now THAT would be the witness. I do agree that this is too good of a teaching moment to waste, while strongly disagreeing with the decision to honor Obama.
I feel sorry for Pete. He’s apparently too dense to grasp the distinction between war and peace.
On the bright side he’s lucky enough to be completely ignorant of what real torture looks like.
10. I suggest you read the International Red Cross report on US “interrogation” practices. It’s not a pretty picture. I’m sorry, but the US tortured.
The really comical thing is that the Catholic Church also officially opposes the death penalty in all forms, but clearly this blog overwhelmingly supports it. Once again, conservative “ideals” are adjustable under certain circumstances.
Obama, and Catholic enabler politicians like Kerry, Pelosi, et. al., should be confronted on the occasion of these invites by the Bishops — confronted in an intellectual way of course, with this:
http://www.cny.org/archive/eg/eg102308.htm
Wow…people really hate the “sanctity of life crowd.” They must be doing something right.
The pope was right about condoms, but you’re really not interested in reading that, are you?
http://pajamasmedia.com/andrewklavan/2009/03/18/score-one-for-the-pope/
#12 Klaire – that is a brilliant suggestion
#14 Pete – you clearly do not know what you’re talking about, as the church does not “officially oppose the death penalty in all forms.” You should read the catechism sometime.
Dear Elizabeth Scalia,
I hear what you say and while I concur with your good intentions, I find myself in absolute disagreement with what you say.
It is true that the Holy Spirit must be our Guide.
It is true that the occasion for presenting anew the REASONS of Life shouldn’t be squandered.
But: isn’t it true that we must exercise our free-will in obedience to the Infinite Love of God ?
We have to operate choices, we must fight our battles AS IF the Holy Spirit wouldn’t help us.
In a way, we have to go first, and that is the true Prayer to ask for the assistance of the Holy Spirit.
And: is this truly a fresh occasion for a new debate ? Are we talking about a moderate leader whose ideas differ from our ideas but whose good intentions are sure and sound ? I highly doubt that this is the case.
Many, and I am one of them, fear that we are in presence of a very strange “Administration” whose ideas for America are VERY OLD ideas, already abundantly disproved by history, and at a costly price.
We are facing an Administration that, as you read in another column published here on Pajamas Media today, threatens bankers evoking angry mobs, and does a lot of other things that go way beyond “controversial”.
Many fear that the trend of this administration is towards forms of severe limitations of Freedom.
Shall we open a debate with an Administration like this ?
Or shall we admonish them to change their ways, to RADICALLY change their ways ?
SZ
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
(Not checked for spelling mistakes, I apologize)
Social conservatives are best ignored. Their time has passed; they’re simply screeching into a vacuum.
Abortions for all!
11. Pastor of Muppets: People who screw around like dogs deserve to die like dogs.
Catholics and anyone else who objects should fill the streets of South Bend to peacefully obstruct his way. If there is a sea of people objecting then maybe he (and the Democratic Party) will get the message.
And the president of the university should resign or be fired.
I understand completely what Elizabeth Scalia is trying to get across to us. For too long the pro-Life movement has either been portrayed as a caricature or has allowed itself to be caricatured.
As a lifelong Catholic who had a hiatus for almost half of my life, only recently have I been re-appraising the traditional teachings across a range of issues and find that when approached in an open minded, rational manner one can certainly have a fresh perspective and appreciation of those teachings. Looking back, much of it has not been taught well. Being a former Jesuit seminarian, I am quite familiar with the Ignatian spirit of “let us reason together” that is the hallmark of the Society of Jesus’ approach to apologetics and learning.
In an environment of pervasive barbarism and degradation of the person, we need to invite our interlocutors into a calm, learned dialog about the biblical understanding of life as sacred. That’s where it all begins.
We recognize that there are many people who absolutely reject the idea of the sacredness of life and creation and no amount of reasoning from that premise is likely to impress. But I think there are many more out there who would be receptive to an imaginative and rational conversation about these things.
First, the premise has to be established that human beings, inchoate and fully developed, are not “property.” Next, we have to convince people that the fetus is not a “parasite” which I have heard some feminists describe it. Also, we Catholics will have to accept some traces of the arguments from the other side: that there are some limited circumstances under which abortion may be a tragic and necessary act to prevent the pregnancy from terminating the mother’s life. I know of two real, actual cases of this from family and acquaintances. It happens. Not very often, but it happens. Overall, it means we have to become a truly wise, moral, and compassionate people, instead of a strictly legal one.
However, Obama’s approach to this problem is barbaric. Revolting. Not only that, but getting rid of the medical professional’s option to exercise conscience in the management and decision making in their hospitals and clinics is unacceptable. I hope that our Catholic hospitals simply choose to defy the government on this rather than close their facilities.
What the pro-life students at the graduation should do is at a critical point in the speech, is turn their backs to Obama thereby rejecting his pro-abort views. What would happen if a third or a quarter of the students (maybe more) would turn their backs to Obama? It would send a clear and public pro0life message to all.
We are too hard on the President. Isn’t his administration the only thing standing between their bankers and the pitchfork wielding masses?
Then again, maybe he’ll say an Ave to the Virgin of Guadalupe.
This is fine as far as it goes, which is not nearly far enough. Yes, sure, the graduation should be a “teachable moment” but you do not adequately develop this slogan into something practical and show how that would happen and what that would look like. Thus, once again, I find that commentators on this issue singularly fail to appreciate the very nature of a graduation ceremony, which, as currently celebrated, does NOT allow for any engagement, for any actual teaching, to go on in any substantial way. They could, but they do not, and so to hope for any significant engagement, debate, or discussion, is a vain hope indeed.
Well said, Fred (#22) — I agree with Ms. Scalia’s very persuasive point. There is much shrillness in the public arena to listen to each other’s side. I hope that we can hear within our hearts what Ms. Scalia’s point is: we have to get back to our loving, pastoral roots. There is a reason why God “allows” certain things to happen, and now is our chance to not let this opportunity pass us by. As much as I oppose and am repulsed by the pro-abortion agenda, I need to step back and pursue pro-life issues prayerfully, quietly, and tactfully.
Erasmus, you’re personally acquainted with each, and every, student at Notre Dame, and this is how you know that they’re more interested in football?
Either that, or you have mental powers, far above, and beyond, those of mortal men!
And why can’t one both be against abortion and the molestation of children? Are you saying that being pro-life somehow translates into being in favor of priests molesting kids?
Yes, folks, it’s another attempt to silence the opposition by snark, and ad hominems! Erasmus is hoping to stop the conversation not by argument, but insults and condescending remarks. (Students at Notre Dame only care about sports, the stupid things! Yah. Right).
And, so, Pete, even if the US did torture some of the prisoners at Guantanamo, this means that one shouldn’t be pro-life, because. . . well?
The really comical thing is how adjustable liberal values are under certain circumstances. The death penalty is evil, but killing the innocent unborn is good.
And, Pete, are you accusing the “Sanctity of life” crowd” here of personally torturing prisoners?
Do you have super-mental powers, like Erasmus, and you can read the minds of everyone who posts here, and you know, for certain, that every last one of them just loves torture?
And, speaking of adjustable liberal values, since you disapprove of torture, how do you feel about Castro’s prisoners, in Cuba, or the way Islamic mujuahdin have sawed off the heads of their prisoners, or attacked innocents in Israel, the Philippines, Darfur and Indonesia? Or is it only America, and the Catholic Church (both soft targets) that trigger your righteous wrath?
“I understand and support the duty of Catholic bishops to register strong disapproval of the president’s anti-life positions, and I further believe that teaching the truth is always imperative, but Catholic universities have never been intellectual ghettos, offering only narrow exposure to ideas. On the contrary, Catholic universities have been bastions of rigorous debate with the application of reason triumphant over trends, sentiments, or policies. Because I believe that, and because I believe in the rightness of the Catholic position on life and the ability of the Holy Spirit to use surprising people and circumstances to do God’s will, I keep thinking, “Why are the Catholics approaching all of this with outrage and apparent fear, instead of confidence in battle?”
Because an invitation to give a commencement address and a conferral of an honorary degree is not a battle. It is an honor.
There’s not going to be a debate; there will be no “conversation” about abortion or the president’s position on life issues. Obama will not be politically stupid enough to talk about abortion in conjunction with the honor being given him, and his hosts at Notre Dame wouldn’t be so uncivil as to raise the issue, if they even care. The event is going to be a platform for him, courtesy of a “Catholic” university.
No one accused Catholic universities (one of which Notre Dame is actually not) of confining their students and faculty to a Catholic worldview; and genuine debate and analysis of issues is always welcome (and rare). They’re not inviting Obama to teach anything. This is nothing but a triumph of the mindless “trends” you speak of.
I really think this will be a very controlled event where students will not be allowed to protest. Isn’t that how Obama operates? The only protests will have to take place way outside the event and will probably not be picked up by the main stream.
Catholic universities have never been intellectual ghettos, offering only narrow exposure to ideas.
There’s a difference between allowing someone to speak and honoring them as a commencement speaker and giving them an honorary degree.
Columbia University invited President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak. They did not invite him to give their commencement address. They did not give him an honorary degree. Should a fellow who believes in executing homosexuals receive such honor? Not even secular universities think so.
Now we have another President speaking at a different university: One that argued three times to let abortionists kill children after they were born alive. Should he be honored by a Catholic University? God forbid! Let Notre Dame be stripped of its Catholic status… that will be a great lesson that the Catholic Church deeply, truly and reverently values the gift of human life.
TalkinKamel,
Sadly, when the Leftist bots drop in to our discussions here how they give an account of themselves does not rise to the level of rational, reasoned argument. If you have perused their sites and the comments sections, you will notice a proliferation and predominance of coarse invective and poor argumentation. Snark and ad hominem are the most used tools in the kit.
Pete’s assumptions and comments are childish beyond belief, but are a common emotive that is supposed to pass for argument on the Left. We can do better and much of the time, we do in fact give a more erudite account of ourselves. Please keep in mind that our blogs are in fact being swarmed sometimes by the other side, employing tactics that are supposed to overwhelm and sidetrack the discussions – attempting to both discourage us and to drive us down to a lower common denominator. Mostly, all manner to styles are employed whose net effect is supposed to function as a psy op.
#30 Juvenal
I think you are spot on with your observation and opinion.
Obama is a narcissistic, serial lying sociopath. His visit to Notre Dame is just another photo op. He will lie about his pro-choice position while advancing his radical socialist agenda. The MSM will spin their reportage to present him favorably.
“Once again, conservative “ideals” are adjustable under certain circumstances.”
Isn’t it the same with liberals, though? Got no problems murdering innocent babies (yes, babies), but don’t dare harm a hair on the chinny, chin, chin of a cop killer, child abuser, wife beater, etc. Let’s treat them with kindness; give them a timeout. It’s because of liberals and the women’s movement that many of our young people today believe it’s okay to slap a woman around. “Never hit a woman?” Oh, that was in the old days. Today, women today want to be treated as equals, right?
It’s really sad what the liberal movement has turned into; I used to think it was a party of tolerance, but, I learned this past election that it’s anything but that.
I think some of you are misunderstanding Ms. Scalia’s suggestion. She’s suggested that the event could well be *followed* by continuing to teach about the sanctity of life. Forget ND and Obama; both will have to suffer the consequences of their choices. But the others? Lead them not to condemn ND or Obama. Instead, lead them to the truth that really matters.
“Because an invitation to give a commencement address and a conferral of an honorary degree is not a battle. It is an honor. ”
It may be an “honor” to some, but it is still a battlefield and the bishops have no business leaving the battlefield because they don’t like the venue.
I applaud the thrust of Elizabeth’s article and I agree that there is great strength in a calm and respectful presentation of the Word of God in the debate over murder of the unborn.
Here is the problem. If you have ever been at one of these abortion slaughterhouses when the confrontations heated up, you would quickly understand why the fight has become so polarized.
The bottom line is that a lot of good, gentle people have been badly mistreated, physically abused, and even arrested simply for holding a sign in front of a place where a form of legalized murder is taking place.
The secular authority has created laws to protect what it calls “access” or a “woman’s legal right to abortion” and this has meant that security guards, police officers and the courts now stand ready to arrest, prosecute and imprison good hearted people for doing nothing more than expressing themselves and for trying to persuade another person not to commit murder.
These fights are not hard to find. There is a diehard contingent of folks who have made this fight into almost a ministry. For those of us who have seen security personnel pushing retired nuns around and watched people being dragged up the street to a waiting police van, it’s just a bit hard to tolerate the Notre Dame invitation and the awarding of an honorary degree to a man who will, without doubt (or conscience), continue to put into place more of the legal structure that has permitted the aforementioned acts.
Still, if we all remember that the only way around the Devil is to strip him of his earthly support, I could support the Notre Dame invitation. All I want to know is what does Notre Dame, Roman Catholicism, and the mountain of little bodies get in return for the honor to bestowed on this man.
So talk. Dialogue is fine. The problem is that it takes at least two parties to have one. How does the Church get an invitation to the table where this hoped for dialogue will take place?
If Notre Dame has hoped that this invitation will afford them an opening for discourse, then we should see, shortly after the event, one taking place. If the dialogue does not take place, then I would say that someone sold something very precious for very little. It is very clear that, given the sacrifices so many good people have made in this fight, given the often cruel deaths of so many innocents, the faithful should get something substantial in return.
Sorry… should be
to BE bestowed on this man.
I’m not even a Catholic, but greatly admire the pro-life stance of the Catholic church. It’s very important work you are doing. I can’t imagine why Obama was invited in the first place, considering his extraordinarily radical views and votes on the issue of Life.
I do urge you all to dis-invite, loudly protest, withhold alumni donations, Everything! to stop him or disrupt this event. Sabotage his teleprompter!!!
Juvenal (30) On the battlefield you tell one adversary from another by the flag he carries. Obama is a walking flag of one who supports every barbaric aspect of abortion. This will not be a “teaching moment”. It will be a one sided commentary on Obama’s beliefs and if he does not address abortion, he will surely address the glories of socialism. There will be no debate. Recall the invitation.
#38 Jbl:
Can you please explain to me how this is a battle? Can you explain to me how the bishops “don’t like the venue?” (A “venue,” I feel compelled to explain, is a PLACE where something happens, not the event itself).
Where or how will the “battle” take place in this farcical show? As I’ve said, Obama is coming to Notre Dame to accept an honorary degree and to give the commencement address.
Unless he plans to talk about abortion and to explain why he has taken the stand he has as part of that address (which would be a bold, bold move on Obama’s part and which would earn him my grudging admiration), there will be no exchange of ideas. And there will be no one to give the Church’s side of the story in any event, barring interruption by protesters. And I think they will be barred.
The bishops aren’t participating because they know very well that this event is going to be a public platform–this time with a “Catholic” institution’s approval–for an infanticide president, and that the “exchange of ideas” simply isn’t going to happen.
What Notre Dame has done is a tragic mistake. It has provided a platform for the President, whose views on abortion and embryonic stem cell research are inimical to Catholic teaching; thus by implication Notre Dame endorses the President’s views on this subject or regards them as of no significance. In the minds of many Notre Dame has betrayed its mission. The Catholic Church has never wavered in its opposition to the destruction of voiceless, helpless human beings living in the wombs of their mothers.
Oh no, not this crap again.
There is nothing to be gained by politicizing this issue.
Perhaps the college should give Obama a dead baby doll covered in blood instead of an honorary diploma? Since he wants INFANTICIDE, he would welcome the dead baby with open arms, although it would be a PR disaster for him.
HOw many times have I lovingly, reasonably presented the life case to my M.D. brother-in-law to no avail? The only time I ever saw a glimmer of something cross his eyes was when, at the end of one of these long, circular convos, I asked him to hold my “products of conception” while I served brunch…;)and handed his little nephew to him. People dont ignore the abortion argument because of the way it is presented…you can make your case in a million ways, but they won’t hear. Those who need to hear an unequivocal enough is enough are the uncatechized sitting in the pews and what they will hear when Obama is feted at ND is abortion is really not that big a deal. The time for cowardice masquerading as “loving and pastoral” is over. Stand up and turn your backs on him. Or when he sbegins to speak fall to your knees and pray the rosary aloud…stay away — anything but try to reason with evil…
What I think is difficult about this is that part of the underlying issue brings up the insight of Jesus told to Peter in the Palm Sunday Gospel, ‘The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.’ This is also the point of a recent Onion joke. What is discouraging is that Notre Dame has shown the same weakness of the flesh over having an avant-garde president grace the property. If that is such a temptation for the president of the university, what hope do we have for the co-eds.
You have good intentions, but I am very disappointed in your conclusions. This is not an open dialogue or a teachable moment for Obama. He is speaking at a Catholic college to students which tells them that his opinions are the ones they should be listening to. He is being HONORED by Catholics when he couldn’t be more against Catholic basic fundamental moral principles.
I am ashamed to be a Catholic these days. With every weak statement about “engaging in dialogue” with the other side, we continue to chip away at our Catholic identity. If a Catholic instution can honor someone like Obama in this manner, and people like Biden and Pelosi continue to go to Communion and talk about how “ardent” they are in their faith, then being Catholic doesn’t really mean much anymore.
I don’t think I’m going to remain in the Church much longer. My husband and I are seriously considering joining the Orthodox Church. At least there we won’t have the Church making a mockery of herself for all the world to see, bringing shame on her own people.
“Pastor of Muppets:
It’s also amazing that the “sanctity of life” crowd has no problem with the pope telling the world that condoms are not effective in preventing AIDS.
How many innocent people do you think are going to die from AIDS this year because they’ve been instructed not to use condoms? How much you want to bet it outnumbers abortions?”
I hate to inform you and you flock of your faulty logic, but a report commissioned by the UN – and promptly buried – stated that condoms in Africa have no effect. In fact, they have given people the impression that they are ‘bullet-proof’ when it comes to promiscuous sex and may actually INCREASE AIDS.
n 2003 Dr Hearst and his research assistant Sanny Chen, then of San Francisco’s Department of Public Health, carried out an extensive literature review commissioned by UNAids on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV virus in sub Saharan Africa and other developing regions. I quote –
“The initial report, titled: Condoms for Aids prevention in the developing world: A review of the scientific literature, concluded that although condoms were about 80 per cent to 90 per cent effective as a public health strategy in halting the spread of Aids in some concentrated epidemics (epidemics affecting men who have sex with men, injecting drug users and commercial sex workers) in places like Thailand and Cambodia, condoms were seen as ineffective in preventing the spread of HIV/Aids in generalised epidemics like those taking place in Eastern and Southern Africa.” -http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/-/2558/525956/-/view/printVersion/-/8jl790z/-/index.html
Note the last sentence there, please.
In fact, Uganda USED to have a proven strategy that placed Abstinence as the first line of defense under their ABC program. In fact, it was so successful, India adopted a similar program. In 2002 or so, the UNAIDS apparatus went whole-hog on condoms, dumping enough so that some nations actually boasted that they had seven condoms for every man – oh boy. Uganda was coerced to ditch the abstinence component – and….guess what? The AIDS numbers are rising again.
If you want to talk about an issue, know it.
Thanks, Fred, yes, I agree, the Left postings are mostly psy-ops—which is why I enjoy picking them apart, and exposing.
Whenever someone, anyone, makes a blanket statement, such as they KNOW that EVERYBODY in a certain place thinks such-and-such, it’s false; they have no way of knowing any such thing! (Unless their name is something like, “Mental the Magnificent!” Paging the Watchmen?) But Leftists use this sort of argument all the time. Well, it’s BS!
All too many times, such arguments, and the insults accompanying them, like the bitter remarks about pedophile priests and condemns, are intended to shame, and embarrass the opposing side into just shutting up, and dropping the argument altogether. And it works, sometimes. Which is why the essential falsity of such non-arguments needs to be pointed out, again and again.
Elizabeth, I love your writing, but, on this, I have to respectfully disagree. As other posters here have pointed out, this isn’t a question-and-answer session, or one where there will be freedom of exchange. Obama will speak, the audience will listen, and be expected to applaud at the end. No one will ask any questions. If they do, they’ll probably be hustled out.
Furthermore, inviting someone as pro-abortion as Obama to speak at a Catholic college indicates that the Catholic administration there doesn’t feel that the church’s teachings on the sanctity of life are especially important, or need be obeyed. This is setting a bad example to Catholics in general, not to mention scandal.
Ms. Scalia:
Delighted to see you here. Reading the Anchoress is always time well spent.
As to the Alleged Hawaiian’s appearance, we can always hope for a Sauline conversion…
…or an Elijah-type whirlwind.
One wonders which miracle would be more common in fair and green Indiana.
You gotta love the, “Pity the skanky, sleazy, scumbag put a penis in whatever hole crowd and contract/spread aids” VS. The “innocent child vacuumed out of a uterus gasping for a breath death crowd”.
Once a child has fingers that can grasp ‘in utero’…they are A HUMAN BEING and are far beyond the stage of a ‘thought bubble’.
-But, no. Let’s worry about the men who want to put their penises in other men’s anuses or women who want to bump their ‘mons pubis’ against each other with a dildo strap-on.
War has always raged. Would it be nice one day for war to never happen? HELL YES! It would also be nice for babies that survive a late term abortion the right to LIVE rather than being dumped into a waste bin after being suffocated to death.
The ‘day after’ pill is much more humane because you are ‘offing’ the offspring at the cellular level. Once a baby [yes, a BABY] has been formed, it is a BABY and not just some embryo/fetus. When little hands can grasp and suck their own thumbs…you mean to tell me that it’s okay to slice that innocent life up into tiny bits and vacuum it out like garbage?
My skank mother aborted one of her children and it haunts her to this day.
Susan Smith was no worse than the late term abortion propagandists.
Babies in the womb recognize voices, music, sleep patterns [by the mother]. My daughter LOVED Johnny Carson when she was only a few months old and his late night talk show would always help her sleep and that was a show I watched every night when I was pregnant with her in my womb.
I don’t believe in the whole ‘live begins when the egg meets the sperm’ thing. I believe life begins when a heart and brain and feelings are formed.
Today, I thank GOD for my daughter whom I love with all of my heart, mind and soul and I can’t imagine being pregnant in a 2nd or 3rd term and wanting to destroy that innocent life.
Sorry but to me? That’s MURDER.
51. TalkinKamel:
Whenever someone, anyone, makes a blanket statement, such as they KNOW that EVERYBODY in a certain place thinks such-and-such, it’s false; they have no way of knowing any such thing! (Unless their name is something like, “Mental the Magnificent!” Paging the Watchmen?) But Leftists use this sort of argument all the time. Well, it’s BS!
~~~~~~~
Just more evidence of their stunted juevinille status – it sounds *just* like a teen declaring they must go to the party because “everyone else is going”. (or – doing something, etc.)
I see that many are taking the time to consider Ms. Scalia’s thoughts, and say they generally agree, but….
I think the distinction that must be made, relative to the ‘battle’ concept presented is this:
The fact of Obama visitng ND, and giving his commencement address, and receiving an honorary doctorate IS NOT THE BATTLE…
Battles are a series of engagements between two (or more) parties in opposition to each other. Let’s take the view that this particular instance (Obama at ND) is but one in a VERY long series of engagements in the battle for life. This is not the first, and it will not be the last. Certainly, it is of significance for us Catholics, in America, but given the nature of the battle, we are viewing only a small skirmish out of many. The lines are clearly drawn, the positions are well-known, but this is not the final engagement. We need to be able to take this situation before us, and allow ourselves to be used by the Spirit for the will of God, to further HIS plan for ourselves, His Church, and the world.
Higher up… focus higher up!
Sorry Elizabeth I have to disagree with you. What many catholics fail to see is the inherent evil underlying this avant-garde president. There is no debate with evil, and there will certainly will be no debate of any sort at ND, just another tightly controlled photo-op that will give evil more boasting rights.
The Catholic bishops are wrong in staying away. They should attend in numbers and then make their protest point by turning their backs on this president. We all know however that our leaders and teachers in the Catholic Faith are so compromised that they couldn’t even conceive of such a symbolic act. Those ND students attending their Commencement might consider not throwing their shoes at Obama but perhaps their trenchers.
Now THAT would be a photo-op that even the leftist inclined MSM couldn’t pass up!
Klaire – there IS a Eucharistic Procession at Notre Dame devoted to promoting a Culture of Life, but nobody is talking about it. Perhaps its because they want to paint Notre Dame as totally depraved instead of recognizing that many good things happen on that campus too.
April 26th after the 11:45 a.m. Mass at the Basilica – sponsored by Notre Dame Campus Ministry for the 5th consecutive year. Go to http://www.notredameprocession.com
“perhaps Obama at Notre Dame could be the beginning of the pro-life Catholic Church articulating its authoritative teaching in a manner so calm, so pastoral, and so attractive that others may be enticed to finally listen and that hearts may begin to turn.”
Elizabeth, since you write that this could be the beginning… are you implying that you do you not find the writings and exhortations of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict on pro-life topics to be calm, pastoral and attractive? Please tell us how you would address someone being honored at a Catholic university — calmly, pastorally and attractively — that supports partial birth abortion (i.e, sucking the brains out of babies as they gasp for their first breath) and who wants to take away the right of health care workers to avoid participation in activities contray to their consciences.
Would that the church have shown as much outrage against an immoral war and a President who allowed the introduction of torture. The church’s real concern seems to stop at birth
All that I know is that a person that commits a murder has a chance to appeal even after the jury finds him guilty of murder.On the other hand a infant cannot have the same rights that a convicted murderer have.This is what BHO approves!ND makes me sick to my stomach for inviting him
Katie, not trying to be snarky, here, but focus higher up—to where? Upon what?
This may, or may not, be a skirmish, but Notre Dame is a prestigious Catholic college; it’s a big thing, for the church, that they are inviting such an outspoken proponent of abortion—which the church condemns—to speak at the commencement.
The questions this raises, are:
1. Does Notre Dame no longer believe in the evil of abortion, and the sanctity of life, despite what the church officially teaches?
2. If the above is the case, can they really continue to call themselves Catholic?
3. Are they misleading, and creating scandal, for the very students they’re supposed to be teaching about G-d, and how to live a Catholic life? At the very least, aren’t they setting a bad example by this?
These are big questions. In fact, I’d say that, if this openly pro-abortion president is invited to speak at a prominent Catholic school like Notre Dame, the battle, at least in the Catholic Church, is pretty much over, and the other side won.
Hopefully, this isn’t the final battle, and G-d has a plan, He always does. But this is serious.
If Notre Dame had invited, say, a Nazi, to give the commencement speech, people would be quite reasonable to question if it had, indeed, become a racist institution. It’s the same principle at work here.
Shadow, what do hypothetical questions about an “immoral war” (which one?) and Abu Ghraib have to do with the topic of this thread?
If you have an argument, make it. Coulda-would-shoulda-woulda? isn’t an argument.
See this
“Because Obama really is an enemy of the Church and has no compunction about surrounding himself with people who are quite nakedly contemptuous of Her. What is required is a cool-headed response to a very cool cucumber who is coolly implacable in his will to defeat the Church’s teaching on a number of crucial points (albeit not all).”
Again, Elizabeth, I love your writing—but if Notre Dame intended to lovingly, calmly and attractively defend the church’s teachings on abortion, I doubt they’d have invited Obama to be their speaker in the first place.
Wasn’t there somebody else they could have invited, who could have lovingly, calmly and attractively defended life? If they agree with the Catholic church’s teachings, why not invite someone who’ll defend them? If they don’t, can they still be considered part of the church?
Should have said statements in my comment to Shadow, not questions. The jist of my comment still stands.
I would like to suggest to Notre Dame a dialogue with Mr. Obama on abortion that might be made without any confrontation whatsoever.
I would like to suggest a dialogue without words (no, that is not an oxymoron).
I suggest that at the same time Mr. Obama is to receive his honorary degree that, for example, a retired nun who was arrested outside an abortion clinic mount the stage to receive the very same honor.
In my scenario, the presenter would, of course, give biographical information on each awardee and the reasons for the award being given.
People in attendance would then be able to see the difference between piety, humility, and a life lived for God and that of Mr. Obama (or any other politician for that matter).
I would suspect that, as the audience heard about the awardees’ very different lives and their very different actions, the point would be made in a very Christian manner.
There are those who will not hear because they have closed their minds and their hearts to the Word. We cannot speak to them but there are others who may be listening. They are our audience and they may want to hear what we believers have to say.
I suspect Mr. Obama is lost. It’s unfortunate.
54. Delia: . . . “I can’t imagine being pregnant in a 2nd or 3rd term and wanting to destroy that innocent life. Sorry but to me? That’s MURDER.”
So what should the punishment be for the mother? The doctor? If a woman’s husband consults and agrees with his wife to pursue an abortion, is he an accessory to murder? What should his punishment be? If a woman is raped and impregnated by a schizophrenic sex offender and has an abortion, should she be imprisoned? If a doctor performs an abortion to save the life of the mother, is he a murderer?
Or are these matters that should be left to the individual?
I was waiting for Ms. Scalia to come up with an ingenious way to promote the protection of innocent life but all she came up with was condemnation for the people willing take a stand against this tyrannical monster – Barack Obama.
Shame on you Ms. Scalia.
Rolling over and playing dead doesn’t work, Ms Scalia.
Prime Minister of England, Neville Chamberlain, cried “Peace in our time!” upon returning to the UK after meeting with Hitler. He discovered very quickly that he was wrong.
There is no conflict between love and standing fast in the truth. Christ cautioned us to be “wise as serpents and gentle as doves”. The two thoughts do not conflict…and notice which one he mentioned first.
The scriptures admonish all those who know Christ to “stand fast, and having done all, to stand.”
So, what will you and others do, Ms Scalia?
#67:
All matters are, of course, left to the individual to decide.
Nonetheless, we are expected to make the right choices. The penalty for making the wrong choices, that is, sinful ones, occurs in the afterlife.
The trials and travails of this world are but a preview of that which is to come for those who will not hear and obey.
If a woman is raped by “a schizophrenic sex offender” (your example), then the product of that sinful act nonetheless remains innocent of that crime and has all the rights given by the Lord to all children.
Remember that when a child is conceived and given a soul that he comes by invitation of the Lord Thy God. Who but a fool stands against the Will of God, scalpel in hand, to turn back that which He has sent?
Would you compound the original crime of rape by murdering the baby conceived thereby creating still another victim?
Many speak about social justice and the rights of women but those same rights, of course, do not apparently apply to the unborn: justice is only for those who have voices.
The irony of all this is that no matter what anyone says or believes about abortion, there is but one judge of these acts and there is no escape from His judgment.
So yes, it is a matter of choice. I will pray that you and everyone else (myself included) make the right ones.
A teachable moment would be to make BHO share the stage with Gianna Jessen. Or better yet, scratch BHO and just honor Gianna Jessen. (Ms. Jessen is a miracle survivor of the BHO baby bucket)
Elizabeth,
You have to FIGHT for the truth and morals. The reason why Satan is winning this one in America is that people like you sit around and don’t fight and are not as diligent.
You voted for Obama didn’t you?
If I’m an unborn child and had a voice you could hear it would be something like this:
“I want to live. Help me. Momma!”
One column to prove to the world what a tool you are for Obama and the Proud One.
Get yourself out of the way and leave the battle to the ones who believe and love the unborn.
67. one of my own,
Oh, Kiddo. I often had such arguments with one of my best friends and we finally settled on the fact that we had our own opinions and we could not sway one another. If some ‘madman’ raped me I’d take “The morning after” pill. Did you not read that part of my rather long-winded rant?
*IF* I could not take the morning after pill I would have the baby because it would STILL be part ME too. My friend had a real beef with me over that because back when we used to argue about abortion there was no “morning after” pill at the time.
These hypothetical nonsensical arguments give me a serious migraine though. You owe me a Tylenol.
Anyway, if I were a Catholic [which I'm not but my hubby is] I’d definitely be in defiance of having someone like B.O. ‘honored’ at my school.
JH SPYKER
#19
WOULD THAT YOU WERE ABORTRED ! THEN WE WOULDN’T BE EXPOSED TO YOUR SOPHOMORIC TRASH !
S.M.
A Church which will not stand for its own doctrine will not stand at all.
#60: “The church’s real concern seems to stop at birth”
What an idiotic thing to write. Only someone who has no idea about all the church does for people of all stripes, from sheltering pregnant women and mothers, to setting up employment centers, soup kitchens, outreach. You show your ignorance. Look around and learn something.
#72: Voted for Obama? Read this and this. Especially read “Abortion is a blessing.” That’ll smoke you.
If Obama’s appearance were going to involve dialogue, if there was going to be a question and answer session, then I’d agree with Ms. Scalia that this might be the perfect time to defend innocent life, and the church’s teaching.
But it’s going to be a commencement speech, where Obama talks and the audience is expected to listen, and not comment. There is going to be no give and take of ideas here.
And, as I pointed out earlier, you an imagine the uproar if Notre Dame had invited, say, a white racist to speak. Even if he didn’t mention race during his talk, the invitation itself would be seen as tacit approval of his racist views.
So, what, exactly, is Notre Dame trying to do here?
As for being a teachable moment, is any Catholic bishop out there actually protesting this, loudly and in the mass media? And does it seem to be getting through to people, or is is being shuffled away as “La, la, la, business as usual).
And as for this being an ongoing dialogue. . . I suspect the majority of the “dialogue” pro-life supporters are going to be subjected to is the sort we’ve seen from some of the posters here, which can be summed as, “AW, SHADDUP! CATHOLIC PRIESTS ARE ALL PEDOPHILES, AND THE CHURCH DIDN’T CONDEMN BUSH!”
If any of you would like to make a difference, contact the head of the Congregation for Catholic Education in Rome. He’s really the only person (outside of the pope) with canonical status to change the situation.
Most Reverend Archbishop Zenon Grocholewski, Prefect
The Congregation for Catholic Education
of Seminaries and Institutes of Studies
[Secretary: Archbishop Jean-Louis Bruguès, O.P.]
00120 CITTÀ DEL VATICANO
Roma, Italy
20. Self Control said: “…people who screw around like dogs…”
Except that dogs don’t come anywhere near doing the nasty things that some guys do – maybe that’s why dogs don’t get AIDS.
If only this statement were true. The Catholic Church has passionately, ignorantly and consistently preached the sanctity of Catholic lives – and has repeatedly shown contempt for any other belief system. Throughout the centuries the Catholic Church has been the friend of the powers and principalities that have held human life cheap, and has asked only for the privilege of claiming the souls they have dispatched.
Obama should briefly and clearly state his position on the fundamental right to privacy, and the fundamental right to control of one’s own body. Catholics are entitled to their position on abortion – but our government was instituted in part to prevent them from making their position mandatory. Our nation was founded on freedom from such coercive government action.
Abortion is part of a fundamental right of all persons to control their own bodies. The Catholic Church has no right, and no moral standing, to change this.
Peace.
DS
TalkinKamel
It is impossible to talk to someone who compares Obama to a Nazi. Only when the Church gives as much attention to poverty and our obligations to feed the hungry will it have the credibility to convince people to fight for the seamless web of life
Catholics re entitled to their position on abortion? Gosh, thanks, David! How very generous of you! You mean they can actually practice the religious freedom the founders of our country said all men could? Wowzers!
All persons do have the right to control their own bodies. Abortion effects the body of a child—a child in its mother’s womb. At that point, it’s not just about the mom’s body anymore. If, human beings do have a right to life, and if killing innocent life is wrong, than no government, and no national leader—no, not even Obama, has no right, and no moral standing, to change this.
And, whether you agree with Catholic beliefs or not, they do have the right to question their own authorites, when said authorities, as in this case, appear to be giving them mixed messages.
The Shadow, where did I compare Obama, personally, to a Nazi? I did no such thing, nor do I think he is a Nazi. I used the example of Notre Dame inviting a white racist to as an example of how who you invite to speak at your institution of higher learning can lead others to believe you support all their views, and why you should be careful about this, if you don’t want to give people the wrong idea about what you do, and don’t, believe in.
Now—have you run out of insults, and are you ready to actually debate, instead of playing psy-ops?
Here’s something to start with—the church has actually paid a great deal of attention to poverty, and the poor, over the course of the centuries. Even if it’s been remiss about this sometimes (and haven’t we all?) how does this somehow make it impossible for them to disapprove of abortion?
“You have to fight for truth and morals”
You also have to represent them sanely, without ranting.
#82: “Only when the Church gives as much attention to poverty and our obligations to feed the hungry will it have the credibility to convince people to fight for the seamless web of life”
Name an international organization that does more to feed the hungry and help the poor than the Catholic church.
Go ahead. I’ll wait.
@83. TalkinKamel:
Common ground here:
We agree on a principle. Now you offer some qualifiers:
Who gets to decide for a woman what to do with her body? You? I think it’s still the choice of the woman. Ultimately, it is her choice regardless – it is simply a matter of how difficult abortion is to obtain. Calling a fetus a child is a good semantic move, but a fertilized egg is a long way from childhood.
A child in its mother’s womb ≠ a person – it is a developing human child, but not a human being unless it is developed enough to “be” without the mother. A fertilized egg cannot have the same moral standing as a fully conscious human being.
Or do you believe that “Every Sperm is Sacred?”
Peace.
DS
70. George Hood:
~~~~~~
You might also ask those who cry “women who are raped should be able to choose to abort” how they treat a woman who was raped, BUT KEPT the resulting child? Do they respect her? or wonder what is “wrong” with her?
In reality, their response is often as demeaning as those attacking Sarah Palin for keeping a down’s child; or demanding her teenage daughter abort. (90% of down’s babies are aborted.)
Every sperm IS sacred
Even the French have more respect for the unborn than we do; they believe that “en ventre sa mere” (In the mother’s womb) for beneficial purposes, such an infant is in law deemed to be born.
William
Maybe the anti-abortionists are also war and death lovers in other fields so it makes their sanctimomious irony very irritating
You know what is going to happen, nothing! The same anti-abortion cranks will make the same fuss with the same worn out slogans and death camp analogies while just about everyone else snoozes.
I think bush was a better president just because he didn’t listen to anyone but himself. we all should have voted for mccain (another bush). the rich would have gotten richer and the military would have nothing, just like he wanted.
raped women shouldn’t have any choices right? they should be forced to keep an child from the results of a rape. (right)
I’m anti-abortion. It should be the last choice a woman makes if she does not wish to care for the child.
I’m also anti-war, and favor such things as clean air, clean water and universal health care from prenatal to the grave. I guess that makes me pro-life.
David S., it’s generally accepted, that:
1. A fertilized hen’s egg will hatch into a baby chick.
2. when a tom cat fertilizes a lady cat, the result is kittens.
3. When a momma gorilla’s ovum is fertilized, it will eventually become a baby gorilla (and will receive a lot more protection than a human fetilized egg will).
4. And, when a human woman becomes pregnant, she will give birth to. . . (Check one)
Were you under the impression that human females regularly give birth to things that aren’t human? Alarm clocks maybe, or chickens, or sham-wows?
If a fertilized human egg isn’t human. . . well, what is it exactly? A human embryo carries complete human DNA. If not aborted, it will be born, grow into a young boy or girl, who will develop into a youth, then into a young man or woman. . . unless somebody decides they’re “Not a human being”.
When do babies become human? When the mom says so? When the doctor delivers them? When their parents decide they’ll keep them?
(And, no, I don’t think every sperm is sacred. Sperms are sperm. They aren’t developing human beings).
I don’t want to control anybody’s body. Women have the right to control their own bodies. They don’t—repeat—they don’t have the right to control somebody else’s body. They don’t, say, have the right to toss Grandma out the window, because she’s close to death, so she may as well get closer, so we can all get her inheritance. She doesn’t have the right to murder her husband, because his body stands in the way of her getting his insurance, so she can control her own body even more successfully.
She doesn’t have the right to kill her two-year old toddler, because the kid’s a nuisance, and interfering with her new boyfriend.
And, as far as that goes, how able are, say, toddlers to “Be” without their moms—or dads, or somebody to take care of them? If you’re going to use that standard for humanity, nobody’s going to “human” until they’re 16, or so.
(And, of course, the disabled and the old will never be “human”, because they can’t survive without someone to take care of them. Hmmmm, brave new world we’re headed towards).
In short, “controlling one’s own body” doesn’t give one the right to commit murder.
And, Fred, so far, looking at the “reasoned” leftist discussion—what can I say, but wowzers!
They’re all along the lines of, YOU HATE WOMEN WHO’VE BEEN RAPED! YOU LOVE WAR! YOU THINK EVERY SPERM IS SACRED! YOU THINK A FERTILIZED EGG IS HUMAN! WHAT ABOUT BUSH, HUH? WHAT ABOUT ABU-GHRAIB! THE CHURCH SHOULD HELP THE POOR, WHY DON’T THEY?
I applaud Elizabeth Scalia’s good intentions—but this is the sort of “dialogue” we pro-lifers have had to listen to for a looooong time. Our only response, apparently, is to bow our heads, say an Act of Contrition to Woman’s Holy Right To Choose and mumble something like, “We are miserable believers that every sperm is sacred.”
Same thing with Notre Dame. Obama will give his commencement speech, and no one will dare ask him any hard questions in such a venue, or engage in dialogue with him, or question why Notre Dame have invited him to speak—a man so intent on pushing abortion, he’s rescinding the conscience clause for Catholic hospitals and doctors.
We’re all just supposed to know our place, and shut-up already!
20. Self Control . . . “People who screw around like dogs deserve to die like dogs.”
Now that’s what I call a Christian! Such piety. Such compassion. The very pulse of love. How did you come up with your name . . . Self Control? (Ooh it gives me shivers just saying it.) Tell me, do you lash yourself across the back with a long leather strap studded with tacks? I never have, honestly. Oh, and Obama is bad. I have to go now. Will you be here when I get back?
73. Delia: . . . ” one of my own, . . . Oh, Kiddo. I often had such arguments with one of my best friends and we finally settled on the fact that we had our own opinions and we could not sway one another.”
Don’t “kiddo” me with that inane baby talk. You called it murder. That’s not a friendly disagreement. I asked you what the penalties should be for the people involved in that murder. You’re not able to answer because you’re pinned against the edge of your own unreasoned rhetoric. You gotta do better, Delia.
99. one of my own,
Kiddo, I’m not ‘pinned’ period. What? Are you a wrestler?
Do you want to MURDER an innocent victim of rape/savagery merely for the fact they were created under horrible circumstances? Once a baby is a BABY it is indeed MURDER. Are you that daft and brain-washed to not see that TRUTH?
Feel free to abort all of your future children but what a shame to lose more morons arguing pointless points ad infinitum. -Really, such a shame. *crocodile tear*
100. Delia . . . You refuse to answer. That’s fine. Cowardice is always the first option for the right.
“I asked you what the penalties should be for the people involved in that murder.”
~
-The same penalty Susan Smith received for drowning her two children in a lake.
Any other brilliant questions, sir/madame?
It is time for the Bishop, Archbishop, or Pope to give the President of the University a call. As current head of the Babykiller Party, the so called National Democractic Party, Obama should be refused permission to tread on holy ground.
I.U. grad, Texas expatriate in Indiana,
Tex
Purpose and intent matter.
For Notre Dame to invite the world’s leading abortionist to debate Catholic pro-life speakers would be consistent with the spirit of inquiry necessary in a university. From such debate students gain understanding why their religion’s pronouncements make sense.
For Notre Dame to give its highest honor to a man who uses public office to enable others to kill babies – a mortal sin by which he has excommunicated himself from the Body of Christ – is literally obscene.
.
I’m Catholic. I find this entire opposition offensive. This is a Catholic University. Last I heard, the reason you went to a University was to debate, learn and see the other side in an argument.
IF you Catholics are so afraid that a Pro Life person by giving a Commencement address will destroy the Church or Notre Dame, well, your faith is a bit shaky.
The President is usually asked to give a commencement address there. What about Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush again? Any of those OK? How about the Religious that were massacred by all the Contras and other Right wing groups in South America under Reagan? Oh yeah, liberals. Nuns? Liberals.
Some of you people are really, really sick in your understanding of what it means to be Catholic and support social justice.
how about what the pope wrote about the Sanctity of Work? Unions? Anybody here for Card Check? Yeah, lets get all you Republican swine out of here. How about Iraq? Torture? All those Bush crimes? The silence of all you ‘pro life’ people is deafening.
Its time we clean up our own house. how many of you went to Catholic school? Talk is cheap.
Bring up abortion and all you sheep can get led over the cliff.
This is the United States. There is a separation of Church and state. My church has had its cossacks in a bind for decades over this. He’s the president. Get over it. He’ll get to go to less than a dozen schools in his term. Be glad you were honored.
Try humility. Remember that? Thought not.
#95. Well put. If the baby is not a human, then just what is it?
#105 Frank:
“How about the Religious that were massacred by all the Contras and other Right wing groups in South America under Reagan? Oh yeah, liberals. Nuns? Liberals.”
What about ‘em? Did Reagan do it? Did Reagan order it? And even if he did, what does the murder of some nuns over 25 years ago have to do with a ceremony in South Bend,Indiana today?
“Its time we clean up our own house. how many of you went to Catholic school?”
My education was split half and half, secular and Catholic.
And cleaning up our own house is EXACTLY what is going on here. The Church doesn’t need to roll out the red carpet for a man such as this Alleged Hawaiian, who will use the power of the STate to force the Faithful to subsidize that which their Faith teaches is anathema.
Separation of Church and State works both ways, sonny…keep your f+ckin’ Caesar the hell OUT of my church.
“I’m Catholic.”
No, I don’t think you are. You sound like one of those “Liberation Theology” heretics…gay married clergy, ordained women priests, Marxism in a mitre, the whole dog’s breakfast that vomited forth from Vatican II.
#105 Frank:
“This is the United States. There is a separation of Church and state. My church has had its cossacks in a bind for decades over this. He’s the president. Get over it. He’ll get to go to less than a dozen schools in his term. Be glad you were honored.”
You are free to worship your latter-day Herod the Great all you wish.
I don’t consider his presence any kind of honor…more an abomination.
“Bring up abortion and all you sheep can get led over the cliff.”
I don’t wish to make it illegal, since it’s not a vastly complicated procedure, but I do not wish to have my taxes used to subsidize it as primarily a means of “birth control”.
And that’s what this argument is REALLY about, my humble little comrade.
@95. TalkinKamel:
A “baby” is a being that has been born – not a fetus. Babies don’t “become” human – they are born that way.
The question becomes one of when the rights of a fetus become compelling, and how to weigh them against the mother’s rights – this was largely settled in Roe v. Wade as far as Constitutional limitations go.
Not born = Not baby
Women should not be forced to bear children against their will. Thankfully our Constitutional Republic has come to recognize that this is a fundamental interest that trumps any interest the State might have in a fetus.
Peace.
DS
“Why are the Catholics approaching all of this with outrage and apparent fear, instead of confidence in battle?”…The publicity surrounding Notre Dame’s invitation to Obama is gifting the church with a teachable moment”
Maybe. And yes, It, the Universe All & Everything does operate in ways that are often obscure to human beings.
However, I still tend to view Notre Dame’s invitation as more an impulse to “star power” (a President speaking) and as a violation of basic principles.
(of course, O will utter the conventional paeans to “life” and so forth. I’m sure he won’t repeat his observation (uttered as a paean to feminists) that he wouldn’t want his young daughters to be “punished with a baby”, probably the stupidest remark of all human history)
(oh geez, DS above “not born=not baby”…sometimes, the despair at human ignorance is overwhelming)
“punished with a baby”
Obama’s mom (who probably wasn’t ever actually married to whatshisname, the guy who left them pretty much permanently when Barack was 2)…well, fortunately, Anne didn’t feel punished when she became pregnant with her boy child.
David S., that has to be one of stupidest things I’ve ever read on a post!
“Babies don’t become human, they are born that way!”
Oooookaaaaaay, so what is a human fetus, say, ten minutes before it’s born? A turnip? What is it about the birth process that magically turns it into a person? Does the doctor inject the products of conception with human DNA on the delivery table? Or does he do a magic dance around it, shaking a rattle, and said dance suddenly turns it into a human being, with the requisite number of chromosomes, etc., to pass as “human”? The nine months it just spent inside its mother have nothing to do with making it human, right?
Let’s go back to basic biology, shall we? Mother cats produce kittens; Mother cows produce calves; Mother gorillas produce baby gorillas.
Human moms produce: (check one):
1. Turnips.
2. Giant Easter eggs.
3. iPods.
4. Sometimes all of the above, but the doctor puts on a magic stork mask, performs the sacred dance, and thus the turnip/Easter egg/iPod is changed into a human being. What would we do without doctors and their magic dances?
No, women should not be forced to bear babies against their will. That’s what birth control, abstinence and self-respect are for.
And, if women want to take control of their bodies, and their lives, they need to treat others with respect as well, and admit that they, too, have a right to life, and self-determination. They need to admit “It’s not all about me”.
Peace, LOL’s and fuzzy-wuzzy maudlins yourself.
tanstaafl, like you, I tend to view the Notre Dame invitation as a star power thing. The school wanted a celebrity speaker and they got one. The fact that he’s against one of the basic tenets of their faith, and that he’s rescinded the freedom of conscience choice for Catholics, which will probably result in the closing of Catholic hospitals (only women are entitled to freedom of choice; religious people just have to shut up and fall in line) doesn’t mean much to them.
And, because this is a celebrity happening, not a real event, there will be no questions allowed, and any protests will be quickly muffled—hey, you don’t diss a celeb! Which is why Catholics aren’t being more “joyful”, and approaching it with more “confidence in battle”. Our opponents don’t believe in open battles. They’re more into the Gramscian technique of taking over our institutions: schools, media, culture, and then telling us it’s all about a woman’s right to choose (remember, religious groups do NOT have freedom of choice), as if a child were a handbag, or a lipstick, that one can choose, or not, as one wishes, and, anyway, we just think every sperm is sacred, we hate women, what have we done for social justice lately, hey, what about Bush?
We need to start getting “Wise as serpents” in this battle. Blind hope isn’t going to help us much.
Delia (#102) thinks a woman who gets an abortion (and the doctor who performs it) should be sentenced to life in prison. Who here agrees with that? Put your money where your mouth is for a change.
Another problem with whole “baby as a being that is born” thing (I assume you mean human babies, right, Dave? After all, puppies, marmosets and hamsters are beings that are born, and they aren’t human), is the whole partial birth abortion question, and the fact that we can save human infants at earlier, and earlier stages of their development now.
So, in one hospital, we can have doctors killing a child that is pretty much born, while, in another one, other doctors can be fighting for the life of a child that is being delivered prematurely. One child has a value placed on its life (even when it’s not yet born), and one doesn’t. How is such a value decided, and who is the one to determine it? The doctors? The parents? Obama? The feminists? Clearly, one infant is seen as “human”, and worth saving, while the other is not.
Well, oneofmy…
This so called…
…doctor started out in family practice and then discovered (as a not particularly competent physician) that he could make a whole lotta dough re-configuring himself into the abortion doctor to the world, specializing in “late term” abortions at $5000/pop. (come one, come all, come Saudi princesses knocked up in the Harem, come frantic girls who change their minds at 7 months along, no problemo !)
2 weeks ago, he was acquitted, as the prosecutor couldn’t quite prove that the 2nd opinion doctor for late term abortions (required by Kansas law) was simply a shill, paid to rubber stamp Dr. Tiller’s money driven decisions.
If you don’t find all this abhorrent to everything human beings purport to be, I can’t help you.
In The Hippocratic Oath, the original one, any practitioner of the “art” of medicine forswore giving an “abortive remedy” to a woman. Naturally our enlightened and evolved (cough) contemporary practitioners have written that out of the Oath modern doctors take upon completing medical school.
Personally, sorry to say, I disrespect the President of the US so thoroughly, I wouldn’t particularly care about changing his mind on abortion. He is soft, he is weak, and being “pro abortion” is an absolute, de rigueur requirement of the Democrat platform.
With the passage of roe v. wade in 1973, feminists got what they thought they wanted, the US Supreme court making a ruling about a Constitutional guarantee of “privacy” that translated into a legalization of abortion.
Feminists saw this as a victory, while I considered it somewhat weird that women would feel they needed the power of the courts to back up or reinforce their (inherent) personal power “over their own bodies” as the saying goes. I saw their excitement and enthusiasm at the decision in roe v. wade (“roe” (a pseudonym) later stated she was essentially used in this case, her daughter wasn’t aborted and is now a woman in her mid 30′s) as a weakness, not a strength.
Numbers of abortions performed exploded after the 1973 decision. The total number of elective abortions performed in the US since 1973 is around 50 million !
Women who undergo the procedure don’t just walk away, scot free. The biological realities of women and the rulings of courts are not necessarily in sync. You just don’t suck out an embryo or a fetus or drill into the skull of a baby in the womb or inject deadly saline into the uterus without there being emotional aftereffects, lifelong even, for the woman.
The good news is that the number of abortions is now, reportedly, on the wane.
The female doctor in the news earlier this week who said, if required (through legalistic shenanigans and machinations of the Obama administration) to perform abortions, she would leave the practice of medicine, is an individual of huge integrity.
@112. TalkinKamel:
Apparently you agree on the basic principle, but still don’t understand the implications.
Birth control can fail, abstinence can be forcibly broken, and self-respecting people understand they don’t have a right to tell other people what to do with their bodies. If “women should not be forced to bear babies against their will”, safe and legal abortion is an important part of the range of options that need to be made available.
Placing undue restrictions on this right will only lead to greater harm. The choice belongs to the woman – you can argue all you want, but that is the biological fact of the matter. Making abortion illegal, or restricting the practice, will only force women into more dangerous situations – or force them to bear babies against their will. Choice is the only solution that is compatible with our Constitution.
Peace.
DS
One of my own, I believe the woman needs counseling and help, and the doctor who provided the abortion needs to be fined the first time around, and, if he keeps it up, yeah, eventually sent to jail.
And I’d have no trouble with jail time for a doc who provides partial birth abortions.
Hopefully, you read Tanstaafl’s link? As he says, it you’re not bothered by this, there’s nothing more we can say.
Speaking of putting one’s money where one’s mouth is, why is it liberals can’t see any other solution to the problem of an unwanted/unexpected pregnancy other than abortion, up to, and including, the ninth month? Can’t we take better care of women, and children, than that?
Oh, and speaking of T’s link, “Over 24 weeks” is a potentially viable infant—and, of course, could describe a full-term infant.
Tanstaafl, that woman is, indeed, a doctor of integrity—and she’s just the sort of person the medical profession is going to lose, with the president’s gung-ho attitude for all-abortion, all the time! (we’re even funding overseas abortions again—this, at a time when the economy is going belly-up).
I hate to think of the sort of “physicians” who are going to take her place!
(And, no, I have no respect for the president at this point either).
Dave, you’re the one who doesn’t understand the basic principle here.
My right to control my own body ends where somebody else’s body begins.
My right to control my body doesn’t give me the right to destroy somebody else’s body.
Life isn’t fair, systems fail, we can’t control everything, but it still doesn’t give me, or anybody else, the right to use others. Banks fail. Criminals can steal your money. That doesn’t give me the right to go out and rob somebody else, if I suddenly become poor.
Those who want freedom must respect it, and defend it, for others, even small, helpless others, who have no voice as yet.
Peace, gummy-bears, happy joy-joys and lollipops!
(And smurfs—did I forget smurfs? Smurfs, and fluffy pink unicorns!)
By the way, Dave, speaking of a woman’s right to control her body—that woman doctor Tanstaafl mentions apparently has no right to control how she, a doctor, can follow her conscience, carry out her job or practice medicine; her “choice”, such as it is, is either to perform abortions, or quit the profession she trained for. Sounds to me, far as the left is concerned, “Woman’s right to choose” begins and ends with abortion.
@121. TalkinKamel:
Ok, one more time…
Actually, sometimes your right to control your body does give you the right to destroy somebody else’s body. For instance, in the case of self-defense. This would be analogous to a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother. There is a right to protect the integrity of one’s body, which provides an affirmative right to destroy the body that poses a danger.
Peace.
DS
Good points, Kamel.
Although it pains me considerably to use the simplistic parlance of the Leftoids (rhymes with hemorrhoids), what about the rights of private (Catholic) hospitals to choose & the rights of individual doctors to choose to not perform “the service” (more Leftoid parlance) of killing a living, growing organism, a human being.
Happy Easter to you and All.
(be sure to wish DS Happy Easter, anything to do with religion drives him nuts…he’s even in denial about his Overlord Obama’s professed (not apparently practiced) dedication to Christian principles)
Dave, are you really comparing a baby to an armed attacker? Pregnancy is not a “danger”, it is how the human race reproduces. This is the sort of LeftThink that’s been around since the 70′s; viewing an unborn child as some sort of threat, or attacker, rather than—an unborn child.
Furthermore, do you really expect us to believe that every last one of those 5 million (and counting) abortions performed since Roe v. Wade were all performed to save the mother’s life, and for no other reason? Risky pregnancies are, thank Heaven, in the minority, and, in many of them, the mother may actually want to save her child—i.e., she doesn’t regard it as an attacker (odd as that might seem to you).
Please. Try another.
Tanstaafl, yes, that is a good question; shouldn’t Catholics, and those who don’t believe in abortion, have a choice?
It’s beginning to look as if, for the Left, the only “choices” they care about revolve around sex/reproduction and being absolved from accepting any of the consequences thereof. They want us to be free to “choose” abortion, but not anything else.
A very happy Easter to you and yours, too!
Dave, peace, love, good-vibes, happy-gladings and a box of Crackerjacks with a prize in it! Oh, and Happy Easter, too!
One of my own, you never answered ME. What about the ‘morning after’ pill which means you can avoid all chances of having a baby at the cellular level.
Once a baby is indeed a BABY [whether you like it or not, a fully devolped FETUS is a baby] then, yes, you are a murderer.
What about the young girls who give birth to babies on their own and throw them in garbage bags to die?
Maybe people need to stop diddling with each other and learn to abstain from peen/vageen.
It’s getting tiresome that you skanks who want to dip your stick into every warm hole that is available ‘rights’. Condoms haven’t solved diddly squat. There are still rampant STD’s and unplanned pregnancies.
Negroids have the highest rate of abortion and often use abortion as ‘birth control’ which is beyond insane.
-But, keep on being idiots and waiting until a baby is a baby and then decide, “Uh oh, I f*cked up” and have the doctor scrape out your ‘mistake’.
As I said before, Susan Smith killed her children and I guess she should get a pass too because hey, a mother should be able to kill her offspring.
WHACK!
126 Delia in yet another list of pubescent thought buds offers. . . “Maybe people need to stop diddling with each other and learn to abstain from peen/vageen.”
Now that’s a realistic alternative . . . and expectation. It worked great for Sarah Palin and her pwecious widdle Bwistol now didn’t it? Young people have sex. Lots of sex. And there is NOTHING you can do to sop it. Young people experiment with life. There is nothing you can do to stop it. Wait, that’s not true. You can stop it if you live in Singapore or in a Taliban village. You should consider that. That way you won’t have to deal with any . . . what did you call them . . . “negroids.”
As for you view that women who get abortions should get life in prison, that sounds an awful lot like an honor killing. Why do you support honor killings, Delia?
One of my own,
Since when does ‘jail’ with three meals a day, television, library time, internet access and pretty much being pampered on the tax payer’s dime considered an ‘honor killing’?
Are you that mentally challenged to even equate the two, child?
Really? -And, don’t forget our prisons treat people far better than many other countries. Do your research.
The term ‘Negroid’ is a legit terminology which is shortened by the word, “NEGRO” which I don’t often use because people instantly seem to think when you use the word ‘negro’ you’re trying to say ‘n*gger’. Ya just can’t win!
You still didn’t answer MY question.
If a woman can use the ‘morning after’ pill, what excuse do you give that skank when she waits well into her 2nd and even 3rd trimester to decide ‘oops’?
P.S. You gotta love vivo who brags about his many ‘lovers’ who have been ‘checked’ for std’s and then feigns prudishness when he’s confronted with my rebuttals.
@125. TalkinKamel:
For the purposes of this thread, yes.
The human race reproduces via a method that is frequently dangerous to the survival of the mother. It is also a “danger” in cases of rape, incest and other unintended pregnancies.
Of course not. I simply expect you to believe that every last one of those represents a woman who made a difficult decision, and should be respected for that. But you would rather demonize.
Abortion is performed for many reasons, and those reasons are sometimes, by their very nature, private. It is a last resort and one that should not be stigmatized. Safe, legal and rare is still a very cogent formula.
Peace.
DS
Except, of course, abortion isn’t “rare”, and it isn’t always safe. It is legal, but, then, so was slavery.
This frequency suggests to me that it’s being taken as a first resort, not a last one, and, what privacy? We all know what Planned Parenthood does, it’s got clinics in every city. What seems obvious to me is that pregnant women in difficult situations are, basically, being told, “Well, you can solve this by getting an abortion!” Forget about actually trying to assist them, and their unborn children, or offering them the alternative of adoption; just get an abortion, get out of our faces, and stop bothering us already!
It’s also a great way for men to get out of committing to their partners, or having to pay child support—which, I think, accounts for the actual popularity of abortion. Privacy and womens’ control of their bodies, be damned! It’s about making less easier for men who don’t want to be bothered being responsible.
Um, so the baby is an attacker. Oooookayyyy. So, you mean the kid—which is completely, physically dependent for its survival on its mother is actually attacking the woman? For purposes of this thread, or otherwise, that’s one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard.
Seriously, if childbearing were that dangerous, and babies so menacing to their moms, women should seriously consider entering a convent and/or having themselves sterilized to avoid encountering such deadly monstrosities (I don’t think that’s what you’re suggesting, but that’s about what it works out too).
In fact the only way to be completely safe might be for women to forgo sex altogether! Then they’d never have to worry about (cue in scary music) THE MENACE OF BABIES!
(Somehow, I don’t think you mean that, either. But, if pregnancy is that deadly, it’s about what it works out to).
Dave, you’ve really got to stop watching all those Rosemary’s Baby type horror movies that started coming out in the 60′s, and all those Lifetime Channel soap operas, where every pregnancy is a crisis, and always involves something like the baby being a mutant and/or giving the mother a life-threatening disease! Again, as I said, this is typical lefthink: the baby is a monster, pregnancy a disease, and women are hapless, defenseless creatures, with no self-control, who must rely on abortion to rescue them from the horror of their own offspring.
Peace, gumdrops, rainbows, dancing teddy bears and Happy Easter!
It (abortion) is a last resort and one that should not be stigmatized. Safe, legal and rare is still a very cogent formula.
What does “Dave” fail to understand about the figure of 50,000,000 abortions performed since 1973 ?
That’s approximately 1/6 of the total current population of the United States that was aborted.
What does “Dave” fail to understand about the fact that, following so called “legalization” in 1973, abortion simply became a means of birth control for many women ?
Is “Dave” so preoccupied parroting the party line (on this and so many other topics) that his brain is unable to integrate simple factual information ?
@131. TalkinKamel:
Legal abortion is safer than illegal abortion. Better sex education and contraception reduces the frequency of abortion. You claim based only on the number of abortions performed that it is being taken as a first resort – but this is not what studies find.
No the baby is not an attacker, but if the baby poses a threat to the life or health of the mother, it poses a similar danger, and may be similarly dispatched using the same principles.
You can make up whatever odd theories you like. Nobody claims the baby is a monster, or pregnancy a disease. Nobody is claiming that women are hapless, defenseless creatures with no self-control. All I am claiming is that a woman has an absolute right to control her own reproductive decisions.
You might prefer a world in which you can dictate the choices of others, but I personally believe that we each are entitled to control our own bodies.
Peace.
DS
A Picture of DS
Uh, Dave, you certainly made pregnancy sound like a disease in your previous post.
Millions of abortions is a lot of abortions, and, no, I can’t believe that at least some of them—probably a lot of them—were the first choice.
Do you have a link for any of those studies you mention?
I don’t want to dictate the choices of others. On the other hand, I don’t condone murder, which is what I believe abortion to be. A woman’s right to choose ends where somebody else’s body begins. By the way, you never addressed my points about choice: is sexual reproduction the only area where people are to be allowed choice, whereas religion, and matters of conscience, are to be dictated by the courts?
Peace, happiness, jollie-wollies and candy canes! Hope you had a nice Easter.
Thank you, Elizabeth, for a rational and truly Catholic response to what has become, sadly, quite a circus. Recognizing the clarity of the,again, truly Catholic teaching on all the life issues is one thing. A failure of genuine hospitality, acknowledgement and respect for the legitimate position of power of the President of the United States is, in my estimation, both foolish and ridiculous. He is not the devil incarnate and we do desire genuine dialogue and a place at the table to do the same. Thank you Notre Dame for recognizing, as countries all over the world, friends or enemies, have done, that the president of ths United States deserves our repect. Notre Dame, too, deserves the respect and the autonomy to use it’s judgement and it’s influence–and it’s hospitality–in the way they believe will be best. The life of a university is unique and Notre Dame lives up to the best in Catholic thought and genuine academic freedom. Keep up the good work.
i am catholic there are too many other sins committed by the congregation and the priests in the church to think that abortion is the only sin that will not be forgiven by god!
Resignation Letter of Notre Dame’s President
In order to make life easier for Notre Dame’s president to resign his position in disgrace after inviting the avidly pro-abortionist President Obama to speak and receive an award on May 17th at the university commencement, Randall Terry has obligingly drafted Rev. John Jenkins’ letter of resignation.
If hope truly does spring eternal, we can hope Father Jenkins wises up, smells his forgotten priestly vows, and signs it.
If he refuses due to the ravages of his sin of pride on top of turning his back on his Catholicity and the moral foundations of Notre Dame, it would be an even more powerful demonstration of support for the right to life of pre-born babies if the faculty and graduates play hooky on May 17th, stand with their backs to Jenkins and Obama during their addresses, or respectfully vacate the Joyce Center when they take the dais.
One wag wishfully suggested, “Notre Dame has recently redesigned the carved inscription above the side door entrance to the Basilica of the Sacred Heart. What used to read “God, Country, Notre Dame” now proudly declares “Obama, Country, Notre Dame:” http://chatteringteeth.blogspot.com/2009/05/notre-dames-new-motto-obama-country.html. I would disagree with the country reference, as well.
The Resignation Letter of Rev. John I. Jenkins, CSC
To the Board of Trustees:
When I took holy vows as a priest, I had high hopes and deep desires to serve Christ and His Church with valor, and without wavering in fidelity.
Regrettably, I have failed in my duty as a priest, . . .
(Read the rest of Randall’s resignation letter submitted on Father Jenkins’ behalf at http://genelalor.com/)