Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on March 24, 2009, 11:41:06 AM
-
Pro-life group calls on Notre Dame to rescind Obama invite
Posted: 11:14 AM ET
From CNN's Sarah Parker
President Obama was invited to speak at the University of Notre Dame's commencement ceremony.
(CNN) — The National Right to Life Committee is calling on the University of Notre Dame to rescind its invitation to President Obama to speak at the university's May commencement.
In a letter sent to Notre Dame's president, Rev. John I. Jenkins, the pro-life group called President Obama the "Abortion president," and that the school's invite "is a betrayal of the University's mission and an affront to all who believe in the sanctity and dignity of human life."
Anthony J. Lauinger, National Right to Life Committee vice president, cites the president's support for abortion rights and expansion of stem cell research as disharmonious with the traditional Catholic university's core values.
"As a Notre Dame parent and supporter, I am outraged by this invitation to Barack Obama. I have apologized to my eight children for the poor guidance I provided them when I encouraged them to enroll at Notre Dame," Lauinger said in the letter.
The National Right to Life Committee isn't the only Catholic group raising objections over the university's invitation.
The conservative Cardinal Newman Society has launched notredamescandal.com, a website opposing Notre Dame's decision to honor President Obama in South Bend, Indiana. As of Tuesday, over 50,000 conservative Catholics have signed the online petition protesting the invite.
University of Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown said Tuesday he does not foresee the university rescinding President Obama's invitation.
The president is set to give the spring commencement addresses at Arizona State University and the US Naval Academy in addition to Notre Dame, the White House announced Friday.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/24/pro-life-group-calls-on-notre-dame-to-rescind-obama-invite/#more-44916
-
University of Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown said Tuesday he does not foresee the university rescinding President Obama's invitation.
And that was that. The POTUS doesn't cater to whiners.
-
It's idiots like them who have convinced me abortion should be used more often.
-
With all the pressing issues facing our nation.... ::)
-
With all the pressing issues facing our nation.... ::)
They are a private institution and have the right to invite or disinvite anyone they want.
I may disagree with their position, but as a private institution they can do whatever they want.
If enough tuition paying, and alumni contributing members feel this way, than fine.
-
They are a private institution and have the right to invite or disinvite anyone they want.
I may disagree with their position, but as a private institution they can do whatever they want.
If enough tuition paying, and alumni contributing members feel this way, than fine.
I'm not disagreeing with that. I just think people need to get their priorities in order.
-
I'm not disagreeing with that. I just think people need to get their priorities in order.
Of course. Obama spending us into debt slavery is a far graver threat than his stance on abortion.
-
Of course. Obama spending us into debt slavery is a far graver threat than his stance on abortion.
Yep
-
Given the Catholic's Church's stance on abortion, and the public comments they've made about pro abortion politicians, Obama never should have been invited.
-
Pro-life group calls on Notre Dame to rescind Obama invite
Posted: 11:14 AM ET
From CNN's Sarah Parker
President Obama was invited to speak at the University of Notre Dame's commencement ceremony.
(CNN) — The National Right to Life Committee is calling on the University of Notre Dame to rescind its invitation to President Obama to speak at the university's May commencement.
In a letter sent to Notre Dame's president, Rev. John I. Jenkins, the pro-life group called President Obama the "Abortion president," and that the school's invite "is a betrayal of the University's mission and an affront to all who believe in the sanctity and dignity of human life."
Anthony J. Lauinger, National Right to Life Committee vice president, cites the president's support for abortion rights and expansion of stem cell research as disharmonious with the traditional Catholic university's core values.
"As a Notre Dame parent and supporter, I am outraged by this invitation to Barack Obama. I have apologized to my eight children for the poor guidance I provided them when I encouraged them to enroll at Notre Dame," Lauinger said in the letter.
The National Right to Life Committee isn't the only Catholic group raising objections over the university's invitation.
The conservative Cardinal Newman Society has launched notredamescandal.com, a website opposing Notre Dame's decision to honor President Obama in South Bend, Indiana. As of Tuesday, over 50,000 conservative Catholics have signed the online petition protesting the invite.
University of Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown said Tuesday he does not foresee the university rescinding President Obama's invitation.
The president is set to give the spring commencement addresses at Arizona State University and the US Naval Academy in addition to Notre Dame, the White House announced Friday.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/24/pro-life-group-calls-on-notre-dame-to-rescind-obama-invite/#more-44916
I care more about this in Annapolis...my day will be Effed when this happened
-
Yeah its miserable when the POTUS comes, especially in a small or confined area like Annapolis. Just sty home that day. Notre Dame ought to be ashamed of themselves, as the most visible Catholic University in the US, to allow this guy to speak, I guess they were blinded by his bullshit.
-
Inviting him to speak at Notre Dame, the US's most famous and respected Catholic University, would be like Yeshiva University inviting a Holocaust denier to speak. Its a private, religious school. They can and should disinvite him. It boggles the mind on why he was invited to begin with. I mean honestly, I'm not even religious and I support abortion rights to an extent, but allowing someone who supports partial birth abortion to speak at a Catholic University... Give me a fucking break. Is David Duke going to speak at Morehouse college next week?
-
Good post, I feel the exact same way. There are alot of kids who go specifically to Notre dame as opposed to other Catholic schools, because of its stature. This wouldn't be such a big deal at Georgetown or BC.
-
Criticism Over Obama Invite Mounts at Notre Dame
Friday, March 27, 2009 6:18 AM
SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- Jimmy Carter came to Notre Dame in 1977. So did Ronald Reagan in 1981 and George W. Bush in 2001.
The University of Notre Dame has a tradition of inviting new presidents to speak at graduation. But this year's selection of President Barack Obama has been met by a barrage of criticism that has left some students fearing their commencement ceremony will turn into a circus.
Many Catholics are angered by Obama's planned appearance at the May 17 ceremony because of his decisions to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and international family planning groups that provide abortions or educate about the procedure.
The consensus Thursday on the campus of the nation's largest Catholic university was that any president should be welcomed at Notre Dame.
"People are definitely entitled to their outrage, but I think the main thing is to see that it's an honor to have the president of the United States come to speak here whether you agree with him or not," said Katie Woodward, a political science junior from Philadelphia.
Justin Mack, a senior film major from Dallas, agreed.
"I didn't vote for him and there are a lot of things I don't agree with him or support. But I feel like for this event people need to put that aside," said Mack, a senior film major from Dallas. "My hope is that doesn't distract too much from what the weekend is about, which is the graduation."
But the distractions have been mounting, including sharply worded letters from two bishops. Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of the Phoenix Diocese on Wednesday called Obama's selection a "public act of disobedience" and "a grave mistake." On Tuesday, Bishop John D'Arcy of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese, which includes Notre Dame, said he would not attend the ceremony because of Obama's policies.
Hundreds of people on both sides of the issue have sent letters to the student newspaper, and a coalition of conservative student groups has announced its opposition.
University spokesman Dennis Brown says Notre Dame does not plan to rescind the invitation. Anyone associated with the university can recommend a commencement speaker, he said, and the president consults with university officers to see who would be most appropriate.
Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins has said the university does not condone all of Obama's policies but that it's important to engage in conversation.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that Obama believes everyone has the right to express their opinion, saying the president met last week with Chicago Cardinal Francis George and others to discuss topics Obama and the Catholic church are interested in.
"He looks forward to continuing that dialogue in the leadup to the commencement, and looks forward to delivering the address in May," Gibbs said.
Bob Reish, the student body president and a graduating senior, said there is a "general excitement" about Obama's visit, although he is aware there are people on both sides of the issue.
As of 2 p.m. Thursday, The Observer, the student newspaper, had received 612 letters about Obama's appearance _ 313 from alumni and 299 from current students.
Seventy percent of the alumni letters opposed having Obama giving the speech, while 73 percent of student letters supported his appearance. Among the 95 seniors who wrote letters, 97 percent supported the president's invitation.
Sophomore Kelsey Fletcher, a Japanese major from nearby Elkhart, said she doesn't think the university should have invited Obama to speak.
"He shouldn't be giving the commencement address because of his policies, but once you invite him you can't disinvite him," she said. "That would be rude."
Others noted that Obama is only speaking at three universities this year.
"We can't just forgive his viewpoints, we can't just let it go without expressing our thoughts on it," said Thomas Heitker, a freshman biology major from Columbus, Ohio. "But he's only speaking at three universities this year and to be one out of so many is something we should be proud about."
Chris Carrington, a political science major from the Chicago area, said he doesn't see how Obama's appearance at Notre Dame contradicts Catholic values.
"To not allow someone here because of their beliefs seems a little hypocritical and contradictory to what the mission of the university and church should be," he said.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_notre_dame/2009/03/27/196663.html
-
::)
-
Is this the same religion that knowingly let priest molest kids and hid it by moving them around so they could do it again.
-
Is this the same religion that knowingly let priest molest kids and hid it by moving them around so they could do it again.
That would be the Catholic church.
-
Idiots.
Let's keep religion out of politics please.
-
Is this the same religion that knowingly let priest molest kids and hid it by moving them around so they could do it again.
Little boys can't have babies so abortion was really never an issue.
-
Most of these right to life nuts use religion as their reason.Idiot
-
Most left wing nut bags use the fake global warming to give worthless 3rd world countries my money.
-
Leading Catholic Asks Obama to Rethink Abortion
Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:03 PM
SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- The head of the religious order that founded the University of Notre Dame has asked President Barack Obama to reconsider his support of abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research in the weeks leading up to his speech at the school's May commencement.
The Rev. Hugh W. Cleary, the superior general of the Congregation of the Holy Cross in Rome, wrote a letter to Obama dated March 22 asking him to rethink his positions through "prayerful wrestling" with his conscience.
Notre Dame's decision to invite Obama has drawn outrage from some Catholics because his stances on abortion and stem cell research are at odds with church teaching.
Cleary said the decision wasn't his but he said the visit should be a "teachable moment" for all.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_notre_dame/2009/03/31/198171.html
-
I don't see the problem
It's not like Obama performs abortions and he's not even Catholic so how can they apply their own standards to a non-member.
Also kind of weird that they would allow a twice divorced adulterer to join their church.
-
Idiots.
Let's keep religion out of politics please.
I'm a liberal, but this is actually a case of politics invading religion. It is curious that Notre Dame made the offer (as well as Obama accepting), but Catholics have decided that abortion is a make-or-break issue among their constituency and the POTUS has made his position known. It's not so crazy that Catholics would be outraged by this.
-
There are Catholics who are pro-choice
-
I understand why some ppl would be upset but he is the president of the UNITED STATES and if he is not coming to talk about abortion then you know what you arent going to agree with a president on all things so let it go.
-
Having the president speak at your commencement is the highest honored guest you can have on your graduation day. Obama should just phone them when he gets back from Europe and say, "Sorry, I've made plans to be in HI with my daughters teaching them how to surf. Maybe next time." :P
I personally don't remember who spoke at my commencement. It wasn't somebody I liked and I was hung over. ;D Bill Cosby spoke at our freshmen Convocation and that was cool. Also we had Bill Clinton come and give a speech at one time. I was in the front row and shook his hand.
From the Los Angeles Times
Editorial
Notre Dame's Obama flap
Attempts to disinvite the president as commencement speaker are an unwelcome intrusion of religion into academic life.
April 1, 2009
After Barack Obama was elected president, Pope Benedict XVI sent him a congratulatory letter. So did Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. At the time, neither the Vatican nor the Catholic bishops were under any illusion about Obama's opposition to outlawing abortion, a position that obviously put him at odds with the church's agenda. That didn't prevent them from welcoming a dialogue with the new president or offering to work with him in common pursuits.
The same can't be said of conservative Catholics who are lobbying Notre Dame University, the best-known Catholic institution of higher learning in the country, to rescind an invitation to Obama to speak at its commencement in May and accept an honorary degree. Led by the Cardinal Newman Society, a self-appointed guardian of orthodoxy, the protesters seem to believe they are more Catholic than the pope.
The argument against Obama's appearance at Notre Dame is that it's incompatible with the church's opposition to abortion and the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research. But a similar charge could have been leveled against the 2001 appearance at the university of George W. Bush, who as governor of Texas presided over scores of executions. Although the church's objections to the death penalty aren't as absolute as its opposition to abortion, U.S. bishops have taught since 1980 that "the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty." For them, the death penalty is also a "life" issue.
Catholics in America -- clergy and lay people alike -- are divided over whether the church should equate political support for legal abortion with moral approval of the procedure. In 2004, the archbishop of St. Louis threatened to deny Holy Communion to Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, a pro-choice Catholic. Other bishops, including Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles, leave it to pro-choice Catholic officials to search their own consciences.
Of course, the issue at Notre Dame isn't whether Obama, a Protestant, should be welcomed to a Catholic Communion rail. It's whether a distinguished university should ban a speaker with whom it disagrees or engage him, as the pro-life evangelical pastor Rick Warren did when he invited Obama to speak at his church. Notre Dame's decision reflects a historic development in the way Catholic universities are viewed by Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
Thanks in part to the Second Vatican Council, the last four decades have seen a once- unthinkable integration of Catholics into the American mainstream. As part of that development, Catholic universities have attracted students and faculty of all religious backgrounds by combining their identification with the church with the principle of open discussion.
Sometimes that requires a balancing act, and there are voices in the church advocating what they see as the "re-Catholicizing" of institutions such as Notre Dame or Georgetown University. These critics took some comfort in a speech by Benedict last year in Washington, in which he told Catholic educators that academic freedom couldn't justify a Catholic university's endorsement of "positions that contradict the faith and the teaching of the church."
But the pope's mandate is consistent with the position adopted by Notre Dame in the Obama controversy. The university's president, the Rev. John Jenkins, has emphasized that the invitation to Obama "should in no way be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of life, such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research."
It isn't just Catholic universities that sometimes need to be reminded of the importance of uninhibited debate. In 1974, students at Yale drowned out a speech by the physicist William Shockley because they objected to his views about race and intelligence. In 2007, President Lee Bollinger of Columbia University rightly resisted calls that he cancel an appearance by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- and then "welcomed" Ahmadinejad with a litany of denunciations. The attempt to have Notre Dame disinvite Obama is only one example of the impulse to censor dissenting views in an environment that should welcome them. In resisting that campaign, Notre Dame has kept faith with both its religious and its academic missions.
-
There are Catholics who are pro-choice
True, I would even wager that a significant majority of baptized Catholics don't even give a fuck about abortion. I live in New York and have a lot of Italian, practicing Catholic friends who fall into that Category.
However, we're not talking about opinions of individuals. The position of the organization is very strongly anti-abortion- to the point where they encourage people to vote with that position in mind. This isn't just an "agree to disagree" issue for the church as an organization.
-
I was born and raised Catholic and I think abortion should be allowed under certain circumstances but I'm not religious and to put it mildly, the morning after pill has saved my ass on more than one occassion- That being said, I have absolutely no problem with Notre Dame revoking the invite. Abortion is a non-negotiable proposition in the view of most catholics, religious christians and, I'd say most religious jews and practically all musilms. Given Notre Dames almost infallible stature as the countries most famous and renown Catholic University , it is nonsensical to have Barry speak at the commencement.
For all my brothas on the board, it would be SELLING OUT TO THE MAN. Even though in this case, its a black man.
-
I was born and raised Catholic and I think abortion should be allowed under certain circumstances but I'm not religious and to put it mildly, the morning after pill has saved my ass on more than one occassion- That being said, I have absolutely no problem with Notre Dame revoking the invite. Abortion is a non-negotiable proposition in the view of most catholics, religious christians and, I'd say most religious jews and practically all musilms. Given Notre Dames almost infallible stature as the countries most famous and renown Catholic University , it is nonsensical to have Barry speak at the commencement.
For all my brothas on the board, it would be SELLING OUT TO THE MAN. Even though in this case, its a black man.
it's really hard to confront the absurdity of religion
-
True, I would even wager that a significant majority of baptized Catholics don't even give a fuck about abortion. I live in New York and have a lot of Italian, practicing Catholic friends who fall into that Category.
However, we're not talking about opinions of individuals. The position of the organization is very strongly anti-abortion- to the point where they encourage people to vote with that position in mind. This isn't just an "agree to disagree" issue for the church as an organization.
Editorial
Notre Dame's Obama flap
Attempts to disinvite the president as commencement speaker are an unwelcome intrusion of religion into academic life.
April 1, 2009
After Barack Obama was elected president, Pope Benedict XVI sent him a congratulatory letter. So did Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. At the time, neither the Vatican nor the Catholic bishops were under any illusion about Obama's opposition to outlawing abortion, a position that obviously put him at odds with the church's agenda. That didn't prevent them from welcoming a dialogue with the new president or offering to work with him in common pursuits.
The same can't be said of conservative Catholics who are lobbying Notre Dame University, the best-known Catholic institution of higher learning in the country, to rescind an invitation to Obama to speak at its commencement in May and accept an honorary degree. Led by the Cardinal Newman Society, a self-appointed guardian of orthodoxy, the protesters seem to believe they are more Catholic than the pope.
The argument against Obama's appearance at Notre Dame is that it's incompatible with the church's opposition to abortion and the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research. But a similar charge could have been leveled against the 2001 appearance at the university of George W. Bush, who as governor of Texas presided over scores of executions. Although the church's objections to the death penalty aren't as absolute as its opposition to abortion, U.S. bishops have taught since 1980 that "the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty." For them, the death penalty is also a "life" issue.
-
I was born and raised Catholic and I think abortion should be allowed under certain circumstances but I'm not religious and to put it mildly, the morning after pill has saved my ass on more than one occassion- That being said, I have absolutely no problem with Notre Dame revoking the invite. Abortion is a non-negotiable proposition in the view of most catholics, religious christians and, I'd say most religious jews and practically all musilms. Given Notre Dames almost infallible stature as the countries most famous and renown Catholic University , it is nonsensical to have Barry speak at the commencement.
For all my brothas on the board, it would be SELLING OUT TO THE MAN. Even though in this case, its a black man.
It's President BARACK Obama, "Georgie." ::)
Notre Dame's Obama flap
Attempts to disinvite the president as commencement speaker are an unwelcome intrusion of religion into academic life.
April 1, 2009
After Barack Obama was elected president, Pope Benedict XVI sent him a congratulatory letter. So did Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. At the time, neither the Vatican nor the Catholic bishops were under any illusion about Obama's opposition to outlawing abortion, a position that obviously put him at odds with the church's agenda. That didn't prevent them from welcoming a dialogue with the new president or offering to work with him in common pursuits.
The same can't be said of conservative Catholics who are lobbying Notre Dame University, the best-known Catholic institution of higher learning in the country, to rescind an invitation to Obama to speak at its commencement in May and accept an honorary degree. Led by the Cardinal Newman Society, a self-appointed guardian of orthodoxy, the protesters seem to believe they are more Catholic than the pope.
The argument against Obama's appearance at Notre Dame is that it's incompatible with the church's opposition to abortion and the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research. But a similar charge could have been leveled against the 2001 appearance at the university of George W. Bush, who as governor of Texas presided over scores of executions. Although the church's objections to the death penalty aren't as absolute as its opposition to abortion, U.S. bishops have taught since 1980 that "the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty." For them, the death penalty is also a "life" issue.
Catholics are without a doubt the dumbest and most lost of my Christian brothers and sisters. ;D
This will all probably help to decrease ND's applications for enrollment in the future, so their stupidity will also be their financial loss.
-
10 Holy Cross Priests Voice Objection to Notre Dame for Obama Invitation
The members of the Congregation of the Holy Cross, which helps run the university, asked the Holy Cross priest who is Notre Dame's president and the university's board of fellows to reconsider the invitation to President Obama because he supports abortion rights.
AP
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Ten priests from the order that founded the University of Notre Dame say the school risks its "true soul" and could distance itself from the Roman Catholic church by inviting President Barack Obama to campus next month.
The members of the Congregation of the Holy Cross, which helps run the university, asked the Rev. John Jenkins, the Holy Cross priest who is Notre Dame's president, and the university's board of fellows to reconsider the invitation to Obama because he supports abortion rights.
"Failure to do so will damage the integrity of the institution," said the letter published Wednesday in Notre Dame Observer.
Notre Dame announced last month that Obama would deliver the university's May 17 commencement address and receive an honorary degree. The decision by the nation's best-known Catholic university sparked widespread anger among many Catholics who said Notre Dame should not honor someone whose policies on abortion and stem cell research clash with core church teachings on human life.
Hundreds of abortion opponents protested on campus Sunday, and the priests said the invitation has opened a "fissure" between Notre Dame and many bishops. More than a dozen bishops have denounced Obama's appearance, including Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Jenkins has said the university does not condone all of Obama's policies, and spokesman Dennis Brown has said Notre Dame does not plan to rescind the invitation.
"We respect the opinions of members of the Holy Cross community and others," Brown said.
Obama would be the ninth U.S. president to receive an honorary degree from Notre Dame and sixth sitting president to address graduates. Other commencement speakers have included Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush.
Cecilia Prinster, president of the Notre Dame Alumni Association, noted in a column also published in the campus newspaper that Obama policies in areas such as health care reform, economic security and environmental stewardship are in line with Catholic social teaching.
"Although we disagree with Mr. Obama on some core issues, we must not condemn," Prinster wrote.
But the Holy Cross priests reminded Notre Dame that U.S. bishops in 2004 adopted a statement that declared "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 letter noted that this is Holy Week, when the church observes the events that culminated in the crucifixion of Jesus, and said Notre Dame "pursues a dangerous course when it allows itself to decide for and by itself what part of being a Catholic institution it will choose to embrace."
The university fellows, part of Notre Dame's governing structure, have several duties including one to ensure that Notre Dame maintain its Catholic character, according to Notre Dame's web site. Its 12 members include six Holy Cross priests, among them Jenkins and Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Ill.
Jenky has not taken a public stand on the Obama invitation.
Brown, the Notre Dame spokesman, said the university also has received a letter from Cardinal George, but he declined to discuss its contents.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/09/holy-cross-priests-voice-objection-notre-dame-obama-invitation/
-
it's really hard to confront the absurdity of religion
You ain't lying... Fucking idiots.
-
Notre Dame's Obama invite riles Catholic bishops
Posted 5/3/2009 2:16 AM ET
By Eric Gorski, AP Religion Writer
This coming week, Bishop Thomas Wenski of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orlando, Fla., will take the unusual step of celebrating a Mass of Reparation, to make amends for sins against God. The motivation: to provide an outlet for Catholics upset with what Wenski calls the University of Notre Dame's "clueless" decision to invite President Barack Obama to speak at its commencement and receive an honorary doctorate May 17.
The nation's flagship Catholic university's honoring of a politician whose abortion rights record clashes with a fundamental church teaching has triggered a reaction among the nation's Catholic bishops that is remarkable in scope and tone, church observers say.
At least 55 bishops have publicly denounced or questioned Notre Dame in recent weeks, employing an arsenal of terms ranging from "travesty" and "debacle" to "extreme embarrassment."
The bishops' response is part of a decades-long march to make abortion the paramount issue for their activism, a marker of the kind of bishops Rome has sent to the U.S. and the latest front in a struggle over Catholic identity that has exposed rifts between hierarchy and flock.
Bishops who have spoken out so far account for 20 percent of the roughly 265 active U.S. bishops -- a minority, but more than double the number who suggested five years ago that then-Democratic presidential hopeful and Catholic John Kerry should either be refused Communion or refrain from it because of his abortion stance.
"I think they do believe the chips are down," said James Hitchock, a history professor at St. Louis University. "The election has changed the whole landscape. Now we have a strongly pro-abortion administration in power, and he's in a position to achieve what we've been trying to stave off now for years."
As for Wenski, he issued a statement and then came up with the Mass idea after angry Notre Dame graduates from central Florida asked for guidance about how to respond, he said in an interview.
"I figured, 'I'm a bishop -- I'm not going to tell them to attack Notre Dame with a pitchfork,'" said Wenski, who is not among the nation's more confrontational bishops. "I'm going to tell them to go pray."
Wenski said he will not "preach a tirade against Notre Dame" during the Monday night Mass at Orlando's Cathedral of St. James. What must be atoned for, Wenski said, is complacency among U.S. Catholics about the legal killing of unborn children, which contributed to the climate that allowed Notre Dame to think it was all right to honor Obama.
Almost immediately after Notre Dame invited Obama and he accepted, anti-abortion and conservative Catholic groups launched protests, and bishops began either making statements or releasing letters written to the university president, the Rev. John Jenkins.
Former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican Mary Ann Glendon turned down a prestigious Notre Dame medal last week because she was to have shared the stage with Obama.
The university has emphasized that Obama will be honored as an inspiring leader who broke a historic racial barrier -- not for his positions on abortion or embryonic stem cell research.
U.S. bishops have long been at the forefront of opposing legal abortion, but it's never been their sole focus. During the 1980s, the bishops issued pastoral letters on nuclear weapons, poverty and the economy, influenced by the late Chicago Cardinal Joseph Bernardin's concept of a "consistent ethic of life."
Many Catholic bishops, however, worried that abortion was getting shortchanged. Those who argue abortion trumps everything say that other issues are irrelevant without the beginning of life and that things like capital punishment and war are sometimes justified.
Bishops hammered that home in November 2007 with a statement on faithful citizenship that said: "The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many."
Timothy Barnes, a Colgate University political scientist, said the Notre Dame clash gives bishops a chance to promote two of their top priorities: re-emphasizing abortion at a time when the issue is waning, and stressing the Catholic character of Catholic universities.
"If you put yourself in their shoes and see Notre Dame honoring a new president, a popular president, who seems to be a new kind of political figure trying to emphasize new issues and post-partisan politics, that would be something they would want to respond to pretty aggressively," he said. "The old divisions of the old politics, in certain sectors, is focused on abortion."
Polls show Catholics giving high job approval ratings to Obama, and Catholic attitudes about abortion and stem-cell research largely mirror the public's.
"I think the bishops who believe abortion is the ultimate litmus test look at the polls and realize Catholics are not listening to them," said the Rev. Mark Massa, co-director of the Curran Center for American Catholic Studies at Fordham University. "They're playing a very dangerous game because they do not have the moral authority they had before the sex abuse crisis, and they're trying to find a toehold and get heard."
So far, the Notre Dame saga doesn't seem to be resonating. Only about half of Catholics surveyed by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life from April 23 to 27 had heard about the controversy.
About half of U.S. Catholics supported Notre Dame, 28 percent said the school was wrong and 22 percent had no opinion, the poll found. People who attend Mass frequently were more likely to oppose the university's stance, and also gave Obama lower job performance marks.
R. Scott Appleby, a Notre Dame history professor, said the bishops' outspokenness points to a new litmus test -- not on whether abortion should be legal but over how to fight it.
"The litmus test is on 'How do we best change the policies and work for a culture of life?" Appleby said. "Many Catholics want to be open to at least discuss with the bishops the best way to move forward on our common goal. But the bishops have imposed this particular approach and have not felt it necessary to consult the faithful fully on that."
Several bishops have taken a harder line on perceived dissent. To them, Notre Dame is defying a 2004 bishops' statement on politics that says: "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 bishops' response to Notre Dame also is part of the legacy of the man who appointed so many of them, said the Rev. Tom Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. Pope John Paul II sought loyal servants who "were willing to take on the world -- willing to argue and debate and confront people," Reese said.
Wenski, the Orlando bishop, said bishops are not angry at Obama in this case, but the university leadership. Yet their disapproval "is also an expression of our frustration" with Obama administration decisions on funding for overseas groups that perform abortions, expanded embryonic stem cell research and "conscience clause" protections for health workers, he said.
On being a voice on abortion, Wenski said: "We've been doing this pretty consistently. Perhaps in the past, some bishops have been a little bit too indulgent of what we tolerate in some of the dissent."
Wenski also has spoken out about banning torture and finding a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants -- issues he said can be common causes for bishops and the White House.
"Bishops are like most other people," he said. "We really don't want to look for conflicts or fights. "But this has been egregious enough that we have to be clear. We're standing on principle, not looking for a battle."
http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=honoluluadvertiser&sParam=30666791.story
-
Declining Notre Dame: A Letter from Mary Ann Glendon
By Mary Ann Glendon
Monday, April 27, 2009, 9:32 AM
April 27, 2009
The Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame
Dear Father Jenkins,
When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.
Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.
First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.
Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:
• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”
• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”
A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.
Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.
It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.
In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.
Yours Very Truly,
Mary Ann Glendon
Mary Ann Glendon is Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. A member of the editorial and advisory board of First Things , she served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican from 2007 to 2009.
http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2009/04/27/declining-notre-dame-a-letter-from-mary-ann-glendon/
-
Idiots.
Let's keep religion out of politics please.
Yes lets.Why is a CATHOLIC institution inviting a guy that stands for everything they are against and against everything they are for?A politician has no buisiness at Notre Dame.
-
Yes lets.Why is a CATHOLIC institution inviting a guy that stands for everything they are against and against everything they are for?A politician has no buisiness at Notre Dame.
I agree.
-
Archbishop Slams Obama Appearance at Notre Dame, Administration's Abortion Policies
One of the Vatican's highest ranked clerics and a frequent critic of President Obama says Notre Dame's giving the president an honorary degree and a platform to address graduates at its commencement next weekend is a "scandal."
FOXNews.com
Friday, May 08, 2009
One of the Vatican's highest ranked clerics and a frequent critic of President Obama said Friday that Notre Dame is causing a "scandal" by giving the president an honorary degree and a platform to address graduates at its commencement next weekend.
'The proposed granting of an honorary doctorate at Notre Dame University to our president, who is so aggressively advancing an anti-life and anti-family agenda, is rightly the source of the greatest scandal," said Archbishop Raymond Burke, who is the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican's highest court.
Burke, the former archbishop of St. Louis and vocal opponent of giving communion to politicians who support abortion rights, told Catholics at a national prayer breakfast in Washington, D.C., that "with unparalleled arrogance, our nation is choosing to renounce its foundation on the faithful."
He pointed to several Obama administration decisions that he said have damaged "the fundamental society that is the family," citing the repeal of the conscience clause, which prohibits health care workers from refusing to participate in abortion-related services; repeal of the Mexico City policy, which allows federal funding to be used abroad to provide abortions; presidential support of the Freedom of Choice Act, which prevents government from in any way denying or interfering with a woman's right to choose; and support of the U.S. Population Fund, which he noted supports China's one-child policy.
He blamed loose morals for legislation that would allow same-sex marriages and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which states have implemented to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
"At the root of the confusion and error about marriage is the contraceptive mentality which would have us believe that the inherently procreative nature of the conjugal union can in practice be mechanically or chemically eliminated while the marital act remains unitive. It simply cannot be sold," Burke said.
Obama has considerable support from Catholics, having won 54 percent of the Catholic vote in the presidential election. In a Quinnipiac national poll released at the end of last month, 57 percent of Catholics said they approve of the way Obama is doing his job, while 33 percent disapproved.
By comparison, 76 percent of Jewish voters approved of Obama's performance while Protestants were the most split -- 44 percent approval to 42 percent disapproval. The poll had 2,041 registered voters
Burke noted the Catholic support, saying a majority of Catholics freely chose leadership that is now implementing decisions that conflict with the tenets of their faith.
"The path of violation of the most fundamental human rights and of the integrity of marriage and the family which our nation is traveling is not accidental," he said. "As Catholics, we cannot fail to notice with the greatest sadness the number of our fellow Catholics who cooperate fully to the advancement of a national agenda which is anti-life and anti-family."
The archbishop also slammed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who was confirmed by the Senate last week on a 65-31 vote. Opponents cited her ties to an late-term abortion provider, George Tillman, who is a supporter of the former Kansas governor.
"The appointment of a Catholic as secretary of health and human services who has openly and consistently cooperated with the industry of procurative abortion in our nation is necessarily the source of the deepest embarrassment to Catholics and a painful reminder of the most serious responsibility of Catholics to uphold the moral law, which is the irreplaceable foundation of just relationships among the citizens of our nation," Burke said.
He added that it "grieves me to say that the support of anti-life legislation by Catholics in public office is so common that those who are not Catholics have justifiably questioned whether the church's teachings regarding the inviolable dignity of innocent human life is firm and unchanging. It gives the impression that the church herself can change the law that God has written on every human heart since the beginning of time."
After initial criticism of the invitation, Notre Dame University President Rev. John I. Jenkins called Obama an "inspiring leader" who follows in a long tradition of presidential guest speakers. He added that the invitation does not mean universal support for Obama administration policies.
"The invitation to President Obama to be our commencement speaker should not be taken as condoning or endorsing his positions on specific issues regarding the protection of human life, including abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Yet, we see his visit as a basis for further positive engagement," he said in a statement addressing the cricitism.
The White House also has heard the criticism about the president's appearance but is not deterred. The president "greatly looks forward to delivering the commencement address at Notre Dame" on May 17, said a spokesman.
"Any commencement is a very special occasion for students and families that are involved. I think Notre Dame has a strong record of healthy exchange of differing viewpoints and ideas," the spokesman said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/08/archbishop-slams-obama-appearance-notre-dame-administrations-abortion-policies/
-
He really ought to decline the invitation.
Some Notre Dame Students to Forego Commencement in Protest of Obama Visit
The University of Notre Dame is allowing its seniors to forego their college commencement Sunday to hold a prayer demonstration on the grounds of the university -- the latest protest against President Obama's controversial visit, which some students say undermines the school's Catholic identity.
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The University of Notre Dame is allowing a group of seniors to hold a prayer demonstration on school grounds on Sunday, graduation day -- to protest President Obama's controversial visit, which the students say undermines the school's Catholic identity.
"The university isn't sponsoring it, but we've approved it," university spokesman Dennis Brown told FOXNews.com on Tuesday.
The demonstration -- spearheaded by the student group ND Response -- is in protest of the honorary law degree Obama will receive during Sunday's commencement. The group claims that by honoring Obama, the university is sanctioning his positions on abortion and embryonic stem cell research, which the Catholic church opposes.
"In defense of the unborn, we wish to express our deepest opposition to Reverend John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.'s invitation of President Barack Obama to be the University of Notre Dame's principal commencement speaker and the recipient of an honorary degree," the group states on its Web site.
ND Response has planned a prayer vigil on the university's South quadrangle during commencement to "bear prayerful witness" to Obama's speech, graduating senior Michele Sagala, who plans to attend the vigil, told FOXNews.com.
"While we respect the office of the president, we don't want to honor someone who goes so against fundamental Catholic beliefs," said Sagala, who added that 20 to 50 students are expected to attend the prayer service. About 1,800 students will graduate from the school on Sunday.
Former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes, who ran against Obama for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois in 2004, also criticized the university's decision to honor Obama.
"The invitation was in and of itself a scandalous action," Keyes told FOXNews.com. Keyes announced that he is planning to go to Notre Dame this weekend and be arrested if necessary for protesting Obama's appearance.
"Scandal, as you know, induces others to sin," he said. "This is as great a crisis for the Catholic church as the crisis that occurred some years back with the abuse."
The White House has said Obama is enthusiastic about giving the commencement address, and the university's president has stated that his appearance does not mean that the university agrees with every policy of the administration.
But student John Daly said, "Obama's honorary law degree is a betrayal of what Notre Dame stands for." While Daly said he and others are not opposed to Obama sharing his ideas in an open academic forum, "the commencement address is a monologue. It's not a dialogue."
On Tuesday, ND Response released a professionally produced video -- similar to a Hollywood blockbuster trailer -- voicing clergy and students' opposition to the president's commencement appearance.
"Bestowing an honor on him is equal to bestowing an honor to those policies which are in very contradiction to Catholic teaching," one student is quoted as saying in the video.
"While there may be a diversity of opinion and academic debate, that is something that is welcomed, but not to the extent that it replaces the foundation of who we are," says another student.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that the president is excited to be addressing students at Sunday's commencement. He said that while there is one group organizing a boycott, there are 23 groups that have formed in support of the invitation to have Obama speak.
"The valedictorian is supportive of the invitation," Gibbs told reporters. He added that public polling done by Pew shows "a majority of Catholics are in support of the invitation to speak at the commencement."
Gibbs also cautioned the press to recognize that those who are against the Obama's visit are in the minority. "I think it's important to understand it appears as if the vast majority of students and the majority of Catholics are supportive of the invitation the president accepted," he said. "And I know he's greatly looking forward to -- to seeing them."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/12/notre-dame-students-forego-commencement-protest-obama-visit/
-
He really ought to decline the invitation.
Too bad for them. They should learn some tolerance.
They will only wind up regretting it that they didn't attend their own graduation.
If they are consistent in word and deed then theys should never take a job, buy a product, do business of any kind etc... from anyone who is pro-choice.
-
He really ought to decline the invitation.
I don't see why.
Too bad for them. They should learn some tolerance.
They will only wind up regretting it that they didn't attend their own graduation.
If they are consistent in word and deed then theys should never take a job, buy a product, do business of any kind etc... from anyone who is pro-choice.
You know that's not gonna happen.
-
He really ought to decline the invitation.
Some Notre Dame Students to Forego Commencement in Protest of Obama Visit
The University of Notre Dame is allowing its seniors to forego their college commencement Sunday to hold a prayer demonstration on the grounds of the university -- the latest protest against President Obama's controversial visit, which some students say undermines the school's Catholic identity.
FOXNews.com
Please. I'll believe the sincerity of this political grandstanding when those same students stop attending ND football and basketball games because 80% of the team is not Catholic. ::)
-
Please. I'll believe the sincerity of this political grandstanding when those same students stop attending ND football and basketball games because 80% of the team is not Catholic. ::)
The issue isn't whether the speaker (or football players) are Catholic, it's their position on abortion. What these students and others are doing is pretty consistent with the position the Catholic leadership has taken on the abortion issue.
-
The issue isn't whether the speaker (or football players) are Catholic, it's their position on abortion. What these students and others are doing is pretty consistent with the position the Catholic leadership has taken on the abortion issue.
Wrong.
These students are using the fact that they attend a so-called "Catholic institution" to impose their anti-choice views on abortion as a litmus test on whether someone can appear on their campus. If you are going to hide behind the Catholic banner, then you should not attend football or basketball games with a majority black team who I guarantee overwhelmingly support President Obama and his policies, including a woman's right to choose.
-
Wrong.
These students are using the fact that they attend a so-called "Catholic institution" to impose their anti-choice views on abortion as a litmus test on whether someone can appear on their campus. If you are going to hide behind the Catholic banner, then you should not attend football or basketball games with a majority black team who I guarantee overwhelmingly support President Obama and his policies, including a woman's right to choose.
Wrong. These students and the many others who are opposed to Obama's invite are taking a position very similar to what Catholic leaders say about political leaders who support abortion (not giving them communion), including encouraging voters not to support pro abortion candidates.
-
The issue isn't whether the speaker (or football players) are Catholic, it's their position on abortion. What these students and others are doing is pretty consistent with the position the Catholic leadership has taken on the abortion issue.
why is their graduation about abortion?
that's the part I don't understand
-
The graduation isn't about abortion. The protest is about abortion. There are protests by many about a commencement speaker at the nation's leading Catholic university with abortion views that are antithetical to the Catholic church's stance on abortion.
-
I take it pro-lifers are against the death penalty as well? ;)
-
I take it pro-lifers are against the death penalty as well? ;)
The two have nothing to do with one another.
One is INNOCENT LIFE the other is not.
-
The two have nothing to do with one another.
One is INNOCENT LIFE the other is not.
Killing is killing... Pro-life people always try to rationalize it, but it's still killing.
-
Wrong.
These students are using the fact that they attend a so-called "Catholic institution" to impose their anti-choice views on abortion as a litmus test on whether someone can appear on their campus. If you are going to hide behind the Catholic banner, then you should not attend football or basketball games with a majority black team who I guarantee overwhelmingly support President Obama and his policies, including a woman's right to choose.
Do you honestly think any of those athletes voted for him based on his policies? I ask because all of the ones I worked with in college could not put together a coherent thought about why they would vote for him. I think most athletes, male or female, support abortion because they will likely be paying for one in college at some point.
Killing is killing... Pro-life people always try to rationalize it, but it's still killing.
Tell that to the liberals who would rather kill innocent children rather than waterboard Haji to extract information or try to rehab stone killers. It's a joke that anyone supports abortion over the death penalty.
-
The graduation isn't about abortion. The protest is about abortion. There are protests by many about a commencement speaker at the nation's leading Catholic university with abortion views that are antithetical to the Catholic church's stance on abortion.
so they want to turn their graduation into an opportunity to protest?
I say fine. I'm sure no one will miss them and actually it would be better if they were not there.
Good riddance
-
Killing is killing... Pro-life people always try to rationalize it, but it's still killing.
No it isn't. All killing isn't murder. Night and day.
-
so they want to turn their graduation into an opportunity to protest?
I say fine. I'm sure no one will miss them and actually it would be better if they were not there.
Good riddance
Good riddance from where? Their school? They're leaving anyway.
And they're not the only ones complaining/protesting. Go back and look at the thread. Objections are coming from all over the place and pretty high up the chain.
-
No it isn't. All killing isn't murder. Night and day.
I didn't say murder... I said killing is killing.
The end result is a dead body.
-
I didn't say murder... I said killing is killing.
The end result is a dead body.
So then if the pieces of shit sentenced to life in jail are going to die in jail anyway, then let's just kill them. Same result, dead body.
-
I didn't say murder... I said killing is killing.
The end result is a dead body.
Maybe I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying all killing is the same from a moral standpoint? Legally? Something else?
-
Making my weekly trek to this board makes me believe more and more than abortion should not only be legalized but encouraged......... :-X
Just kidding- But barely. :o
-
Making my weekly trek to this board makes me believe more and more than abortion should not only be legalized but encouraged......... :-X
Just kidding- But barely. :o
Going to Walmart, or just about anywhere in this country nowadays, makes me believe more and more that contraception needs to be air dropped around the country.
-
Good riddance from where? Their school? They're leaving anyway.
And they're not the only ones complaining/protesting. Go back and look at the thread. Objections are coming from all over the place and pretty high up the chain.
from the commencement ceremony they are not attending
I assume that when they apply for jobs they will only work for people who share their pro-life views, the same goes with renting an apartment, buying a car, groceries, etc...
-
So then if the pieces of shit sentenced to life in jail are going to die in jail anyway, then let's just kill them. Same result, dead body.
If that's the stance you take, then you're right... I don't really take that stance.Maybe I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying all killing is the same from a moral standpoint? Legally? Something else?
No, I was quite clear in what I meant... The end result is still a dead body.
You understand, you just don't want to.
-
If that's the stance you take, then you're right... I don't really take that stance.
No, I was quite clear in what I meant... The end result is still a dead body.
You understand, you just don't want to.
yeah - that is a weird trait of bum and that's actually a compliment.
I don't think he's actually as dumb as he pretends to be
-
Tu_holmes, serious respectful question. If the unwanted babies are taking up too much space and cost too much money, how can a liberal not look at a violent criminal in the same manner. We let worthless human beings sit in jail for 30-70 years so they can die living off our tax dollars. Can you honestly justify that to yourself and others? We decried against killing babies in Vietnam but abort so many in this country. We prosecute soldiers for murder and the public wants the book thrown at them but because Leroy, or Juan or Billy Ray grew up in poverty they deserve a second chance.
-
Going to Walmart, or just about anywhere in this country nowadays, makes me believe more and more that contraception needs to be air dropped around the country.
Hey! I'm deeply offended by your swipe at Walmart shoppers. :)
-
If that's the stance you take, then you're right... I don't really take that stance.
No, I was quite clear in what I meant... The end result is still a dead body.
You understand, you just don't want to.
What? You were clear as mud. You didn't make any sense. The end result of killing a person in self defense and killing someone to steal their money both result in a dead body, but they're not the same from a moral standpoint or from a legal standpoint.
-
yeah - that is a weird trait of bum and that's actually a compliment.
I don't think he's actually as dumb as he pretends to be
I don't think you're as dense as you appear. I think it's the drugs. But I could be wrong.
-
Tu_holmes, serious respectful question. If the unwanted babies are taking up too much space and cost too much money, how can a liberal not look at a violent criminal in the same manner. We let worthless human beings sit in jail for 30-70 years so they can die living off our tax dollars. Can you honestly justify that to yourself and others? We decried against killing babies in Vietnam but abort so many in this country. We prosecute soldiers for murder and the public wants the book thrown at them but because Leroy, or Juan or Billy Ray grew up in poverty they deserve a second chance.
I don't really understand why you think I'm one of these liberals you're speaking of.
I am personally a pro-life person... I have two kids after all, and I don't personally believe in Abortion, but I say that because I've never been in a position where I didn't want a child, so respectfully, I have to ask you what it is you think I'm justifying.
-
What? You were clear as mud. You didn't make any sense. The end result of killing a person in self defense and killing someone to steal their money both result in a dead body, but they're not the same from a moral standpoint or from a legal standpoint.
I'm not speaking of legality or morals and you know this... I'm quite simply saying that the end result of the dead body is the same.
-
I'm not speaking of legality or morals and you know this... I'm quite simply saying that the end result of the dead body is the same.
If that's your only point then my response is: duh. Of course killing someone results in a dead body. You tried to tie abortion with capital punishment. If the way you draw a parallel is the fact both result in a dead body, then yes I understand that point. It doesn't mean anything, but I understand it.
-
A foetus is a parasitic organism that cannot exist independently of the female. It is not a human being and religious nonsense which has no scientific basis is useless. I would love to see all these pro-life people be forced to take care of unwanted children since they insist that a life in despair, poverty and misery is better that no life...retarded. ::)
-
I don't really understand why you think I'm one of these liberals you're speaking of.
I am personally a pro-life person... I have two kids after all, and I don't personally believe in Abortion, but I say that because I've never been in a position where I didn't want a child, so respectfully, I have to ask you what it is you think I'm justifying.
I must have misread your post. I'm talking about killing is killing, the end being a dead body. I must have taken that out of concept. I meant liberals in general, not necessarily you.
-
I take it pro-lifers are against the death penalty as well? ;)
I am.
-
I don't think you're as dense as you appear. I think it's the drugs. But I could be wrong.
I'm pretty healthy. I'm not a vegan like you but I have a very healthy diet.
I don't do drugs
how about you?
for some reason I've always thought you were smarter than you appear to be on this site
maybe I was wrong
-
I'm pretty healthy. I'm not a vegan like you but I have a very healthy diet.
I don't do drugs
how about you?
for some reason I've always thought you were smarter than you appear to be on this site
maybe I was wrong
I see. When did you stop smoking marijuana?
The only thing I've ever admitted is that I will occassionally smoke just like I will occassionally drink some wine.
-
I see. When did you stop smoking marijuana?
Ok, I guess maybe you are as dumb as you appear to be.
I freely admit I've occassionally smoked (only once this year...so far).
If you think that's relevent then you a truly a moron.
You're not really that stupid are you?
BTW - why don't give us a simple yes or no as to whether you've ever smoked.
-
Ok, I guess maybe you are as dumb as you appear to be.
I freely admit I've occassionally smoked (only once this year...so far).
If you think that's relevent then you a truly a moron.
You're not really that stupid are you?
BTW - why don't give us a simple yes or no as to whether you've ever smoked.
So first you say you don't use drugs (an outright lie), and when I present you with your admission that you are a pothead you say you do smoke weed, but only "occasionally." Tsk tsk. Contradicting yourself in the same thread again. lol.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tJJEi1zseDI/ST7Cb4coorI/AAAAAAAACGc/E7mbNHML8Kg/s200/just_say_no.gif)
Do you still drive under the influence of marijuana?
MJ definitely impairs my driving ability and my lungs don't really appreciate it either. No scientific study needed, at least for me.
-
So first you say you don't use drugs (an outright lie), and when I present you with your admission that you are a pothead you say you do smoke weed, but only "occasionally." Tsk tsk. Contradicting yourself in the same thread again. lol.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tJJEi1zseDI/ST7Cb4coorI/AAAAAAAACGc/E7mbNHML8Kg/s200/just_say_no.gif)
Do you still drive under the influence of marijuana?
god you must be an unbearable jackass in real life
how many times have we had this same discussion?
unlike you, I have no problem admitting anything that I do.
You can't answer a simple question because you will reveal yourself to be a hypocrite or a liar
here's a hint for you....don't worry about it. Everyone already knows you're a hypocrite and liar
Even your children probably know it.
-
god you must be an unbearable jackass in real life
how many times have we had this same discussion?
unlike you, I have no problem admitting anything that I do.
You can't answer a simple question because you will reveal yourself to be a hypocrite or a liar
here's a hint for you....don't worry about it. Everyone already knows you're a hypocrite and liar
Even your children probably know it.
lol. :-* Whatever you say Bob Marley. You really shouldn't smoke pot while you drive.
-
lol. :-* Whatever you say Bob Marley. You really shouldn't smoke pot while you drive.
when did I ever say I did that?
You like the "just say no" tag.
Why don't you "just say no" that you've never smoked.
-
when did I ever say I did that?
You like the "just say no" tag.
Why don't you "just say no" that you've never smoked.
This is a prime example of why people shouldn't smoke pot. Definitely interferes with an ability to follow discussions. Just a couple posts up you can find this:
Quote
Quote from: Straw Man on March 02, 2007, 05:21:41 PM
MJ definitely impairs my driving ability and my lungs don't really appreciate it either. No scientific study needed, at least for me.
-
This is a prime example of why people shouldn't smoke pot. Definitely interferes with an ability to follow discussions. Just a couple posts up you can find this:
you would really suck as a lawyer.
I didn't say I smoke and drive
I don't need to get behind the wheel of a car to know that I can't drive when I'm stoned
example - you can get drunk and If I ask you if you're ok to drive you would say no
no need to get in a car and test it out
Have you ever smoked?
Do you realize every time you ignore the question the answer is obvious?
-
you would really suck as a lawyer.
I didn't say I smoke and drive
I don't need to get behind the wheel of a car to know that I can't drive when I'm stoned
example - you can get drunk and If I ask you if you're ok to drive you would say no
no need to get in a car and test it out
Have you ever smoked?
Do you realize every time you ignore the question the answer is obvious?
Yes straw man. You didn't say you drive while high, even though you did, just like you don't do drugs, even though you do. This is too funny. :) But I'm about done slapping you around for the day. Don't smoke too much dope this weekend.
-
Yes straw man. You didn't say you drive while high, even though you did, just like you don't do drugs, even though you do. This is too funny. :) But I'm about done slapping you around for the day. Don't smoke too much dope this weekend.
Ok I guess I have to admit it
I was wrong
you really are as stupid as you appear to be
-
Do you honestly think any of those athletes voted for him based on his policies? I ask because all of the ones I worked with in college could not put together a coherent thought about why they would vote for him. I think most athletes, male or female, support abortion because they will likely be paying for one in college at some point.
Hopelessly RACIST. :(
-
An article in time online mentions that the pope hasn't offered any comment on the "fake controversy" over Obama and Notre Dame.
It also mentions that 75% of catholics and and US bishops either approve or offer no opinion.
What we do have is a small but very vocal minority which includes professional nutbags like Alan Keyes and Randall Terry with Keyes actually pushing around a blood covered baby doll in a stroller.
Serious question - does religion make people bat shit crazy or does religion just attract some people that are already as dumb as a box of rocks and/or crazier than a shithouse rat?
My personal opinion is that a certain segment of people are already borderline retarded/crazy and the never ending need to reconcile their strict religious beliefs with reality forces them into hypocritical and absurd positions and eventually they lose that last tenuous grip they had on their sanity and we end up with people like Keyes, Terry and perhaps even a few posters on this board.
-
Hopelessly RACIST. :(
Haha, you read a lot into that post. Sounds like you look for racism where there is none.
-
An article in time online mentions that the pope hasn't offered any comment on the "fake controversy" over Obama and Notre Dame.
It also mentions that 75% of catholics and and US bishops either approve or offer no opinion.
What we do have is a small but very vocal minority which includes professional nutbags like Alan Keyes and Randall Terry with Keyes actually pushing around a blood covered baby doll in a stroller.
Serious question - does religion make people bat shit crazy or does religion just attract some people that are already as dumb as a box of rocks and/or crazier than a shithouse rat?
My personal opinion is that a certain segment of people are already borderline retarded/crazy and the never ending need to reconcile their strict religious beliefs with reality forces them into hypocritical and absurd positions and eventually they lose that last tenuous grip they had on their sanity and we end up with people like Keyes, Terry and perhaps even a few posters on this board.
Keyes is still bitter he got run over like roadkill by Obama in the IL senate race. Plus, he is a complete nutcase.
-
An article in time online mentions that the pope hasn't offered any comment on the "fake controversy" over Obama and Notre Dame.
It also mentions that 75% of catholics and and US bishops either approve or offer no opinion.
What we do have is a small but very vocal minority which includes professional nutbags like Alan Keyes and Randall Terry with Keyes actually pushing around a blood covered baby doll in a stroller.
Serious question - does religion make people bat shit crazy or does religion just attract some people that are already as dumb as a box of rocks and/or crazier than a shithouse rat?
My personal opinion is that a certain segment of people are already borderline retarded/crazy and the never ending need to reconcile their strict religious beliefs with reality forces them into hypocritical and absurd positions and eventually they lose that last tenuous grip they had on their sanity and we end up with people like Keyes, Terry and perhaps even a few posters on this board.
This is such a non-issue compared to other shit happening. Typical American getting bogged down in silliness like the Miss California crap... ::)
-
This is such a non-issue compared to other shit happening. Typical American getting bogged down in silliness like the Miss California crap... ::)
This is true. People need to focus on the bid issues and gay marriage and abortion are just not important right now.
-
Haha, you read a lot into that post. Sounds like you look for racism where there is none.
+1
-
+1
-1
-
Pro-Life Activists Converge on Notre Dame to Protest Obama Speech
Hundreds of pro-life activists from across the country are arriving by the busload at Notre Dame with one purpose in mind: to protest President Obama.
By Joshua Rhett Miller
FOXNews.com
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Hundreds of pro-life activists from across the country are converging on Notre Dame's bucolic campus with one purpose in mind: to protest President Obama.
The university's decision to invite the president, who supports abortion rights, to deliver the commencement address Sunday and to award him an honorary degree has brought protesters to South Bend, Ind., by the busload with their protest signs, some displaying the message "Obama = Abortion" and others showing images of aborted fetuses.
As more than 2,000 students prepare for their graduation ceremony, members of the Pro-Life Action League and Citizens for a Pro-Life Society said they'll congregate at 10:30 a.m. Sunday just off-campus in opposition to the president's support of abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research.
"I'm going to Notre Dame to be a witness to the truth," Mary Sullivan, a member of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society, told FOXNews.com. "As a Catholic, this is not what the church teaches and it slaps in the face of what Catholics believe. We don't believe in using fetuses to supposedly find cures for diseases."
Sullivan, who lives in the Detroit suburb Southfield, Mich., will board a 56-seat bus in Ann Arbor along with her husband and two neighbors to make the trip to South Bend. Another bus, meanwhile, will leave from Detroit.
"My purpose of going is I will pray and meditate," Sullivan said. "And I will pray that people will hear the truth and understand what's going on here. We're trying to change hearts and get people to understand that this truly is intrinsic evil."
Judy Parran, an organizer for the group, said a third bus is currently being procured due to increasing demand. Several priests and nuns are expected to be on board, she said.
"The calls just keep on coming," Parran told FOXNews.com. "I just got an e-mail from a couple of people who aren't even Catholic."
Corrina Gura, an organizer for the Pro-Life Action League, said their group will send a total of four buses -- approximately 220 people.
"A lot of people have told us they're driving separately as well," she said. "People are asking if we're adding other buses."
Pro-Life Action League members also will begin their civil disobedience effort off-campus and then join the Citizens for a Pro-Life Society at the prayer vigil on campus to coincide with the commencement ceremony. Additional arrests are possible, if not expected.
"We're going have graphic pictures of abortion and what abortion does to babies and we'll also have signs that will say 'Obama = Abortion' and 'Shame on Notre Dame,'" Gura said.
Citizens for a Pro-Life Society will be carrying signs ranging from the "very graphic to very simple," Parran told FOXNews.com.
The two groups' approach will differ drastically from that of ND Response, a coalition of student groups that plan to voice their opposition to President Obama with peaceful protest and no graphic signs, beginning with an all-night vigil late Saturday and another vigil on Sunday.
And despite calls from ND Response for the two groups to hold orderly demonstrations, some protesters haven't gotten the message and plan on being escorted off campus in handcuffs.
One of those dissidents is Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in all 50 states in 1973. McCorvey, a born-again Christian who runs Roe No More Ministry in Dallas, flew to South Bend, Ind., on Friday.
"I'm coming because I want to show Mr. Obama that I'm not in favor his pro-abortion stance," McCorvey told FOXNews.com prior to boarding a connecting flight in Cincinnati, Ohio. "I'm a peaceful protester, but if they come and take me away, they'll just come and take me away."
McCorvey said she's especially excited for a meditation to be held by the Rev. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, during Obama's commencement address and the candlelit vigil led by Rev. John D'Arcy, bishop of the Fort Wayne-South Bend diocese who will not attend Sunday's graduation, in protest of the president.
"Hopefully we can convince Mr. Obama that he should be standing on the right side, and that's the side for life," she said. "I'm pro-life now, I'm not afraid."
Asked what she'd say to President Obama if given the opportunity, McCorvey replied, "I can't talk like that anymore. I'm a Christian."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/16/pro-life-activists-converge-notre-dame-protest-obama-speech/
-
Pro-Life Activists Converge on Notre Dame to Protest Obama Speech
Hundreds of pro-life activists from across the country are arriving by the busload at Notre Dame with one purpose in mind: to protest President Obama.
By Joshua Rhett Miller
FOXNews.com
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Hundreds of pro-life activists from across the country are converging on Notre Dame's bucolic campus with one purpose in mind: to protest President Obama.
I'll bet the average IQ of that crowd doesn't break 3 figures
I wonder if the Fred Phelps family will be there too
-
Listen to our great president speak and you might just learn something. ;)
President Barack Obama strode head-on Sunday into the stormy abortion debate and told graduates at America's leading Roman Catholic university that both sides must stop demonizing one another. (May 17)
-
I do understand that Obama is a politician and has to walk a tight-rope on this issue but I don't think the Pro-Choice side demonizes the Anti-Abortion side.
Which side does the prepoderance of the protesting, harassment and all the violence?
Which side wants to restrict the other side?
-
I do understand that Obama is a politician and has to walk a tight-rope on this issue but I don't think the Pro-Choice side demonizes the Anti-Abortion side.
Which side does the prepoderance of the protesting, harassment and all the violence?
Which side wants to restrict the other side?
youre right they are never deemed religious nut jobs, bible beaters etc...obama is right we need to stop demonizing the other party, problem is like with most things he is being two faced hypocrite again he takes pot shots at the right at almost every turn. ::)
He give a good speech as we all know but he is more show then go, again says what ppl want to hear at the moment.
-
youre right they are never deemed religious nut jobs, bible beaters etc...obama is right we need to stop demonizing the other party, problem is like with most things he is being two faced hypocrite again he takes pot shots at the right at almost every turn. ::)
He give a good speech as we all know but he is more show then go, again says what ppl want to hear at the moment.
many people who are pro-choice do not belittle the religion of the anti-abortion crowd but certainly there is a segment that does.
On the other hand the anti-abortion crowd includes people that kill doctor and blow up abortion clinics.
please show me examples of that on the pro-choice side
the pro-choice side actually includes an option for the anti-abortion side....namely "choice". The right to choose not to have an abortion.
The anti-abortion crowd has no such option for the pro-choice side
-
many people who are pro-choice do not belittle the religion of the anti-abortion crowd but certainly there is a segment that does.
On the other hand the anti-abortion crowd includes people that kill doctor and blow up abortion clinics.
please show me examples of that on the pro-choice side
the pro-choice side actually includes an option for the anti-abortion side....namely "choice". The right to choose not to have an abortion.
The anti-abortion crowd has no such option for the pro-choice side
I never contested that point of yours only your assumption that the pro choice side doesnt demonize the pro life side ::) obviously thats not the case...as in your point there are extremist on both sides if you do a little research you will see that there is violence coming from the pro choice side as well...from ppl targeting prominent pro life proponents to men killing women b/c they wont get abortions...
-
I never contested that point of yours only your assumption that the pro choice side doesnt demonize the pro life side ::) obviously thats not the case...as in your point there are extremist on both sides if you do a little research you will see that there is violence coming from the pro choice side as well...from ppl targeting prominent pro life proponents to men killing women b/c they wont get abortions...
I'm not aware of people targeting pro-life proponents.
The men killing women for not getting an abortion are probably not doing it for ideological reasons......just a hunch.
Anyway, my point of view works for both sides. If you are against abortion then don't get one.
-
I'm not aware of people targeting pro-life proponents.
The men killing women for not getting an abortion are probably not doing it for ideological reasons......just a hunch.
Anyway, my point of view works for both sides. If you are against abortion then don't get one.
Again do some research on it and you will find some...And like i said my point was not to refute that there are violent pro life extremist only to correct you on your assumption that the pro choice does indeed demonize the pro life crowd at times.
thats like saying if your for murder then go kill...you simplify the problem the pro life group has with abortion by doing that but it doesnt dismiss there legitmate issue with abortion. If you believe that the unborn child is alive then its murder is it not? Im sorry there are plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy these days abortion should only be used in a few specific cases not in the general way to avoid responsibilities like it is now.
I assume your for men not having to pay child support if they dont want to as well?
-
Again do some research on it and you will find some...And like i said my point was not to refute that there are violent pro life extremist only to correct you on your assumption that the pro choice does indeed demonize the pro life crowd at times.
thats like saying if your for murder then go kill...you simplify the problem the pro life group has with abortion by doing that but it doesnt dismiss there legitmate issue with abortion. If you believe that the unborn child is alive then its murder is it not? Im sorry there are plenty of ways to prevent pregnancy these days abortion should only be used in a few specific cases not in the general way to avoid responsibilities like it is now.
I assume your for men not having to pay child support if they dont want to as well?
Tony - I already conceded that the pro-choice crowd does belittle the religious nutbags from time to time (see I did it myself).
Regarding violence perpetrated by pro-choice people - I don't know of any. If you say there is then give me an example but don't tell me to go look for it. You're the one making the claim that it exists.
Unless men are killing women they don't even know based soley on the fact that the women refuse to get an abortion then it's not really the same as the prolife crowd murdering doctors, blowing up abortion clinics or harassing people they don't even know as those people try to enter clinics.
Pro-Choice means pro-choice. No one on the pro-choice side is telling anyone they should get an abortion much less committing violence if they don't
I'm sure any case of man killing a woman who refused to get an abortion was a case of domestic violence. Not trying to diminish it but it's got nothing in common with the type of violence on the pro-life side that is purely based on ideology
Why would you think I'm against men paying child support. By what logic did you arrive at that conclusion?
I also don't think abortion is murder so I wouldn't say that if "you're for murder you should go kill"
This is the bottom line for the regligious supporters of abortion -they think it's murder and so there is no compromise.
I'm curious what the special cases are where abortion should be allowed?
-
Tony - I already conceded that the pro-choice crowd does belittle the religious nutbags from time to time (see I did it myself).
Regarding violence perpetrated by pro-choice people - I don't know of any. If you say there is then give me an example but don't tell me to go look for it. You're the one making the claim that it exists.
Unless men are killing women they don't even know based soley on the fact that the women refuse to get an abortion then it's not really the same as the prolife crowd murdering doctors, blowing up abortion clinics or harassing people they don't even know as those people try to enter clinics.
Pro-Choice means pro-choice. No one on the pro-choice side is telling anyone they should get an abortion much less committing violence if they don't
I'm sure any case of man killing a woman who refused to get an abortion was a case of domestic violence. Not trying to diminish it but it's got nothing in common with the type of violence on the pro-life side that is purely based on ideology
Why would you think I'm against men paying child support. By what logic did you arrive at that conclusion?
I also don't think abortion is murder so I wouldn't say that if "you're for murder you should go kill"
This is the bottom line for the regligious supporters of abortion -they think it's murder and so there is no compromise.
I'm curious what the special cases are where abortion should be allowed?
Look up byron looper and tommy burks...
whether the act of violence against the women is to diminish the ideology or not is not what you asked you stated that youre not aware of violent acts by pro choice ppl against pro life ppl and thats just what those violent acts are...the very reason they are being attacked is b/c they refuse to abort a baby, how much more clear could it be?
You see you are showing the classic liberal double standard on this issue, you are all for a womens right to choose independent of the mans opinion to have an abortion. The man gets no such choice, the only logical step would also to give the man a chance to wipe his hand clean of the situation just like your giving the women...I.E. no child support, look up "liberal double standard and abortion" its a documented concept and taught in entry level logic classes all over the US.
LOL see this is another problem with the pro choice side and much like anybody who is against gay marriage is either a bigot or a closet homo. Anybody who is against abortion is seen as a religious nut job and the only reason they are against it. ::) Im against abortion b/c i believe that its murder, thats independent of my religious beliefs and is not synonymous with religion atheist believe that as well...
Maybe you dont believe its murder that statement is still akin to saying "hey if you for not being responsible then get an abortion"
exceptions in the cases of the mothers health, rape and perhaps incest are pretty much the only acceptable situations for abortion...im sorry like i said there are more then enough ways to avoid pregnancy without using abortion to avoid responsibility
-
Abortion and gay marriage; American politics are a sad affair indeed. :-\
-
Look up byron looper and tommy burks...
whether the act of violence against the women is to diminish the ideology or not is not what you asked you stated that youre not aware of violent acts by pro choice ppl against pro life ppl and thats just what those violent acts are...the very reason they are being attacked is b/c they refuse to abort a baby, how much more clear could it be?
You see you are showing the classic liberal double standard on this issue, you are all for a womens right to choose independent of the mans opinion to have an abortion. The man gets no such choice, the only logical step would also to give the man a chance to wipe his hand clean of the situation just like your giving the women...I.E. no child support, look up "liberal double standard and abortion" its a documented concept and taught in entry level logic classes all over the US.
LOL see this is another problem with the pro choice side and much like anybody who is against gay marriage is either a bigot or a closet homo. Anybody who is against abortion is seen as a religious nut job and the only reason they are against it. ::) Im against abortion b/c i believe that its murder, thats independent of my religious beliefs and is not synonymous with religion atheist believe that as well...
Maybe you dont believe its murder that statement is still akin to saying "hey if you for not being responsible then get an abortion"
exceptions in the cases of the mothers health, rape and perhaps incest are pretty much the only acceptable situations for abortion...im sorry like i said there are more then enough ways to avoid pregnancy without using abortion to avoid responsibility
I running late but a few quick things. I looked up Looper and Burks and I don't see how that has anything to do with abortion. Please clarify why you think Burks murder has anything to do with abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Looper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Burks
I never said anybody who is against aborition is a religious nutjob.
If a man should be allowed to walk away from child support then you could just as illogically say he should be able to force the woman to have an abortion. neither makes any sense.
If abortion is murder then why is murder OK in cases of incest and rape. It's still murder isn't it. So you're saying murder is OK in those cases?
-
Abortion and gay marriage; American politics are a sad affair indeed. :-\
Didn't you know? The biggest concern in America is what other people are doing with their lives, not trying to make sure your life follows the moral path you believe.
-
I running late but a few quick things. I looked up Looper and Burks and I don't see how that has anything to do with abortion. Please clarify why you think Burks murder has anything to do with abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Looper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Burks
I never said anybody who is against aborition is a religious nutjob.
If a man should be allowed to walk away from child support then you could just as illogically say he should be able to force the woman to have an abortion. neither makes any sense.
If abortion is murder then why is murder OK in cases of incest and rape. It's still murder isn't it. So you're saying murder is OK in those cases?
burk was a pro life, looper pro choice supposedly one reason why looper lost or was going to lose.
LOL your logic is pretty bad man...that makes absolutely no sense, heres the problem you cannot logically give reason for giving a women the option of abortion without giving the man the option for abortion(for a man thats simply walking away)...again look it up its taught in entry level logic classes in college...
Ahhhh very good point, and i pretty much have to agree with you on that to a certain extent, with rape to me there are other things to take into account the psychological health of the mother to be is one important one. If she is ok with giving birth to a baby concieved in a violent forced upon act then ok if not then i think its her call although i see your point and argue that point as well...with incest i said maybe b/c as we know incest can lead to a number of birth defects in children however if you extend to that then you might have to extend to all birth defects even those not caused by incest so thats why i said perhaps.
-
burk was a pro life, looper pro choice supposedly one reason why looper lost or was going to lose.
from the very little I read Looper was batshit crazy and nothing I read mentioned Burkes views on abortion as being a motive. Burke was the incumbant and apparently Looper thought if he killed him he would have a better chance of winning. Burke was also opposed the state lottery. Would you call that a motive too? This is nothing more than one person trying to eliminate a rival.
-
LOL your logic is pretty bad man...that makes absolutely no sense, heres the problem you cannot logically give reason for giving a women the option of abortion without giving the man the option for abortion(for a man thats simply walking away)...again look it up its taught in entry level logic classes in college...
have you forgotten that the woman is actually the one carrying the baby?
-
burk was a pro life, looper pro choice supposedly one reason why looper lost or was going to lose.
LOL your logic is pretty bad man...that makes absolutely no sense, heres the problem you cannot logically give reason for giving a women the option of abortion without giving the man the option for abortion(for a man thats simply walking away)...again look it up its taught in entry level logic classes in college...
Ahhhh very good point, and i pretty much have to agree with you on that to a certain extent, with rape to me there are other things to take into account the psychological health of the mother to be is one important one. If she is ok with giving birth to a baby concieved in a violent forced upon act then ok if not then i think its her call although i see your point and argue that point as well...with incest i said maybe b/c as we know incest can lead to a number of birth defects in children however if you extend to that then you might have to extend to all birth defects even those not caused by incest so thats why i said perhaps.
-
from the very little I read Looper was batshit crazy and nothing I read mentioned Burkes views on abortion as being a motive. Burke was the incumbant and apparently Looper thought if he killed him he would have a better chance of winning. Burke was also opposed the state lottery. Would you call that a motive too? This is nothing more than one person trying to eliminate a rival.
LOL you can call it that, i can call it my way...i see your point though
Again though if you need examples simply looking at those women who suffer harm for not aborting should be plenty enough.
have you forgotten that the woman is actually the one carrying the baby?
Ok, lets look at it from this angle since your having problems...why is it that the man has to pay child support? b/c its his child right? ill answer for you, yes
Its still his child during the pregnancy, why does he get no say in anything then?
Again you cant logically give reason why the women can walk away from the situation and the man cannot...
-
have you forgotten that the woman is actually the one carrying the baby?
I don't give a damn who carries the baby... Abortion isn't about the carrying anyway, it's about the responsibility after the baby is born... End of story.
They are both EQUALLY responsible... if so, then the man should also have the option to "abort". For it to be her decision only is absolutely ludicrous. If "it takes 2" then both should have equal say... both for and against.
-
I don't give a damn who carries the baby... Abortion isn't about the carrying anyway, it's about the responsibility after the baby is born... End of story.
They are both EQUALLY responsible... if so, then the man should also have the option to "abort". For it to be her decision only is absolutely ludicrous. If "it takes 2" then both should have equal say... both for and against.
that's dumb
-
that's dumb
You must be another victim of the pussification of America.
-
I don't give a damn who carries the baby... Abortion isn't about the carrying anyway, it's about the responsibility after the baby is born... End of story.
They are both EQUALLY responsible... if so, then the man should also have the option to "abort". For it to be her decision only is absolutely ludicrous. If "it takes 2" then both should have equal say... both for and against.
can a man legally prevent a woman (his wife or otherwise) from getting an abortion?
I don't know so I'm asking you.
I also don't know the laws requiring child support but presumably if the woman has the child then she is responsible to support it and since you agree they are both equally responsible it seems fair that the father should kick in for half the support
-
can a man legally prevent a woman (his wife or otherwise) from getting an abortion?
I don't know so I'm asking you.
I also don't know the laws requiring child support but presumably if the woman has the child then she is responsible to support it and since you agree they are both equally responsible it seems fair that the father should kick in for half the support
no a women can go get an abortion without the fathers approval, completely and totally independent of the man...
Thats fine but if you feel that way if then the man needs to have a say in whether or not she gets an abortion...if not then the man should logically be able to wash his hand of the situation as well, dont you agree? do you see the double standard here?
-
no a women can go get an abortion without the fathers approval, completely and totally independent of the man...
Thats fine but if you feel that way if then the man needs to have a say in whether or not she gets an abortion...if not then the man should logically be able to wash his hand of the situation as well, dont you agree? do you see the double standard here?
I see your point but I don't agree.
If the situation happened to me then I might think differently
BTW - aren't you against abortion in most cases anyway?
-
I see your point but I don't agree.
If the situation happened to me then I might think differently
BTW - aren't you against abortion in most cases anyway?
yes i am, i just see the "liberal double standard" all to often with pro choice ppl and i cant stand it especially when ppl try to argue that there is no double standard...what is it that you dont agree with just out of curiosity
I wouldnt want my s/o to have an abortion for any reason other then her health was in jeopardy or if God forbid she was raped and decided she didnt want to carry the baby. :'(
-
yes i am, i just see the "liberal double standard" all to often with pro choice ppl and i cant stand it especially when ppl try to argue that there is no double standard...what is it that you dont agree with just out of curiosity
I wouldnt want my s/o to have an abortion for any reason other then her health was in jeopardy or if God forbid she was raped and decided she didnt want to carry the baby. :'(
Here's my bottom line and it doesn't require any intervention from the state .
if you're old enough to have sex then you're old enough to take responsibility for your actions. If you have sex use a condom. If an "accident" happens then you deal with the consequences like a responsible adult. If you get someone pregnant and she doesn't want to get an abortion then you man up and take care of your own flesh and blood.
I don't need a court or a government to enforce any of that upon me.
-
Here's my bottom line and it doesn't require any intervention from the state .
if you're old enough to have sex then you're old enough to take responsibility for your actions. If you have sex use a condom. If an "accident" happens then you deal with the consequences like a responsible adult. If you get someone pregnant and she doesn't want to get an abortion then you man up and take care of your own flesh and blood.
I don't need a court or a government to enforce any of that upon me.
The same should be said to women and we wouldnt have a problem, if you have an accident you take responsibility for your actions and give birth instead of acting like a child and getting an abortion.
thats all fine and dandy as long as you see that there is a bias in the law that is discriminitory of mens rights...if your ok with discriminating against men on this then dont come complain to me about gay marriage etc. and use the its discriminatory reasoning...
All in all as long as you see the bias and illogical reasoning that you have ill call it a wash...
-
The same should be said to women and we wouldnt have a problem, if you have an accident you take responsibility for your actions and give birth instead of acting like a child and getting an abortion.
thats all fine and dandy as long as you see that there is a bias in the law that is discriminitory of mens rights...if your ok with discriminating against men on this then dont come complain to me about gay marriage etc. and use the its discriminatory reasoning...
All in all as long as you see the bias and illogical reasoning that you have ill call it a wash...
again, I disagree. I think the fact that the woman has to carry and bear the child gives her some precedence over the man.
I'm also aware, as I'm sure you are that life is not fair or equitable.
Honestly, I can't understand how any man could walk away from supporting his own flesh and blood, regardless of how he feels about the woman or the situation.
-
again, I disagree. I think the fact that the woman has to carry and bear the child gives her some precedence over the man.
I'm also aware, as I'm sure you are that life is not fair or equitable.
Honestly, I can't understand how any man could walk away from supporting his own flesh and blood, regardless of how he feels about the woman or the situation.
LOL so 9 months gestation is equivilant to 18 years of child support payments ::) LOL please...
No life isnt fair but when you use the arguement that the government shouldnt discriminate on one issue and are ok with it on another then you lose credibility...
Honestly i agree with you i would never walk away or look favorably on a man walking away from his child...WHATS HILLARIOUS AND TROUBLING is you have no problem what so ever with the women walking away...More of the liberal double standard, you demonize the man for not living up to his responsibilities but make excuses for the women when she RUNS from hers...
-
LOL so 9 months gestation is equivilant to 18 years of child support payments ::) LOL please...
No life isnt fair but when you use the arguement that the government shouldnt discriminate on one issue and are ok with it on another then you lose credibility...
Honestly i agree with you i would never walk away or look favorable on a man walking away from his child...WHATS HILLARIOUS AND TROUBLING is you have no problem what so ever with the women walking away...More of the liberal double standard, you demonize the man for not living up to his responsibilities but make excuses for the women when she RUNS from hers...
When did I ever say I have no problem with the woman walking away? Are you referring to abortion?
If so, I've never been faced with that choice and it's not my place to tell someone (either party) what to do.
I know that, if I accidently got someone pregnant then I would take responsibility and I can't even say that I would want her to get an abortion. I might but I can't say for sure without knowing the circumstances and I wouldn't take it lightly. I do know that regardless of what the situation was, If I had a child I would support it regardless of whether the woman did or not. I would take responsibilty to my actions and I wouldn't rationalize it. BTW - I see a difference between a bunch of cells a few weeks after conception and a living, breathing human being. I would do the right thing for my flesh and blood.
-
When did I ever say I have no problem with the woman walking away? Are you referring to abortion?
If so, I've never been faced with that choice and it's not my place to tell someone (either party) what to do.
I know that, if I accidently got someone pregnant then I would take responsibility and I can't even say that I would want her to get an abortion. I might but I can't say for sure without knowing the circumstances and I wouldn't take it lightly. I do know that regardless of what the situation was, If I had a child I would support it regardless of whether the woman did or not. I would take responsibilty to my actions and I wouldn't rationalize it. BTW - I see a difference between a bunch of cells a few weeks after conception and a living, breathing human being. I would do the right thing for my flesh and blood.
if youre ok with abortion, youre ok with a women walking away from her responsibility...I understand how you feel but what i dont understand is how you feel that way about men but are ok with women getting an abortion? again logically it shouldnt matter you take care of your kids, you take responsibility for your actions...this is how you feel but for some reason it only applies to men ???
whats the beginning of life for you?
-
I like where this debate is going. Skoal in, feet up, diligently awaiting the next post.
All I know is, if I found out my wife had an abortion she'd wake up with divorce papers in hand.
-
if youre ok with abortion, youre ok with a women walking away from her responsibility...I understand how you feel but what i dont understand is how you feel that way about men but are ok with women getting an abortion? again logically it shouldnt matter you take care of your kids, you take responsibility for your actions...this is how you feel but for some reason it only applies to men ???
whats the beginning of life for you?
to quote Bill Hicks - Life begins when you're in my phonebook
seriously, I have no clue when "life" begins but if you do please spill it
I've already said I think both parents are equally responsible for their actions but we both know that isn't reality in many cases.
If I understand you correctly you are
1. against abortion and think it's murder but it's ok to "murder" in some cases such as rape, incest, "self defence" (i.e risk to the mothers life)
2. believe that if abortion is allowed then the father should also be allowed to refuse any and all responsiblity for the child leaving it the sole responsiblity of the mother
We know you're against abortion so should I assume that you believe that all women should be forced to carry each pregnancy to term and all men must be forced to support the child
Do I understand your position correctly?
-
to quote Bill Hicks - Life begins when you're in my phonebook
seriously, I have no clue when "life" begins but if you do please spill it
I've already said I think both parents are equally responsible for their actions but we both know that isn't reality in many cases.
If I understand you correctly you are
1. against abortion and think it's murder but it's ok to "murder" in some cases such as rape, incest, "self defence" (i.e risk to the mothers life)
2. believe that if abortion is allowed then the father should also be allowed to refuse any and all responsiblity for the child leaving it the sole responsiblity of the mother
We know you're against abortion so should I assume that you believe that all women should be forced to carry each pregnancy to term and all men must be forced to support the child
Do I understand your position correctly?
while i have no definite moment when life starts, there are plenty of decent arguements out there, death is technically when electrical activity stops in the brain so life could be when electrical activity starts. Another could be when the baby is concieved. If you dont have any defined points then why not include infantcide as well?
1. Yes i believe its murder, i said perhaps incest b/c of birth defects but then again i said that would open up the door to a whole host of other options, dont spin here straw...Yes in the event that the mothers health is in danger then yes i would be ok with her choosing to have an abortion, Rape is a seperate issue and since the mother was not a willing participant of the act and b/c her mental health may come into play i would be ok with her deciding then.
2. Yes, although i would be ok with a severly reduced form of child support or perhaps split the medical bills with the mother during pregnancy and nothing afterwards. Again the mother can have an abortion without the fathers consent, the father is stuck one way or the other never having his voice recognized...how do you think thats fair?
3. It gets a tad bit complicated with child support and such, i mean if she gets remarried, gives the child up for adoption, etc...those are grey areas i could go into those if youd like but for the most part lets say ya i think women for other then the reasons ive stated should give birth to the child and men should support their children if they dont live with them.
Lets go over yours here
Your for women being able to escape responsibility but against men having the choice
you feel men should take responsibility for their actions and support their kids, but not women.
you have no belief of when life starts but you still are ok with abortion...do you believe in infantcide as well?
-
while i have no definite moment when life starts, there are plenty of decent arguements out there, death is technically when electrical activity stops in the brain so life could be when electrical activity starts. Another could be when the baby is concieved. If you dont have any defined points then why not include infantcide as well?
1. Yes i believe its murder, i said perhaps incest b/c of birth defects but then again i said that would open up the door to a whole host of other options, dont spin here straw...Yes in the event that the mothers health is in danger then yes i would be ok with her choosing to have an abortion, Rape is a seperate issue and since the mother was not a willing participant of the act and b/c her mental health may come into play i would be ok with her deciding then.
2. Yes, although i would be ok with a severly reduced form of child support or perhaps split the medical bills with the mother during pregnancy and nothing afterwards. Again the mother can have an abortion without the fathers consent, the father is stuck one way or the other never having his voice recognized...how do you think thats fair?
3. It gets a tad bit complicated with child support and such, i mean if she gets remarried, gives the child up for adoption, etc...those are grey areas i could go into those if youd like but for the most part lets say ya i think women for other then the reasons ive stated should give birth to the child and men should support their children if they dont live with them.
Lets go over yours here
Your for women being able to escape responsibility but against men having the choice
you feel men should take responsibility for their actions and support their kids, but not women.
you have no belief of when life starts but you still are ok with abortion...do you believe in infantcide as well?
regarding "life" I don't know when it starts but I don't think I need to at conception or even preconception (post sex but before conception).
I recognize their is a difference between a speck of cells and human baby - do you?
I don't think I'm "spinning". If you think abortion is murder then how can abortion OK in cases of incest and rape. Shouldn't the unfortunate victim be forced to carry that pregnancy to term and then if she chooses, put it up for adoption? Why is murder OK in case of rape/incest.
If I understand you correctly - you're suggesting that it's "fair" to either have a "severly reduced form of child support or perhaps split the medical bills with the mother during pregnancy and nothing afterwards." So "fair" to you is a greatly reduced obligation and then nothing after the woman is out of the hospital?
on to the positions you've "assigned" to me:
Your for women being able to escape responsibility but against men having the choice - I've said both should be equally responsible
you feel men should take responsibility for their actions and support their kids, but not women. - again I've said both should be equally responsible
you have no belief of when life starts but you still are ok with abortion...do you believe in infantcide as well? - I can differentiate between a microscopic cluster of cells and human being - how about you?
-
regarding "life" I don't know when it starts but I don't think I need to at conception or even preconception (post sex but before conception).
I recognize their is a difference between a speck of cells and human baby - do you?
I don't think I'm "spinning". If you think abortion is murder then how can abortion OK in cases of incest and rape. Shouldn't the unfortunate victim be forced to carry that pregnancy to term and then if she chooses, put it up for adoption? Why is murder OK in case of rape/incest.
If I understand you correctly - you're suggesting that it's "fair" to either have a "severly reduced form of child support or perhaps split the medical bills with the mother during pregnancy and nothing afterwards." So "fair" to you is a greatly reduced obligation and then nothing after the woman is out of the hospital?
on to the positions you've "assigned" to me:
Your for women being able to escape responsibility but against men having the choice - I've said both should be equally responsible
you feel men should take responsibility for their actions and support their kids, but not women. - again I've said both should be equally responsible
you have no belief of when life starts but you still are ok with abortion...do you believe in infantcide as well? - I can differentiate between a microscopic cluster of cells and human being - how about you?
The problem is straw you do need to have a logical reasoning for a point in time when you believe life begins, if its some simple arbitrary point with no reasoning then ppl can make the case for infantcide as well, do you understand or you need me to expand on that?
the baby is made up of specks of cells...
No fair to me is equality of options, when there is equality of responsibility...you see the women have the options here straw the men do not...i really dont know how much more clear to make it, i really dont understand how you dont believe that to be unfair and discrimatory against men?
You keep stating they are equally responsible and i agree, but you dont think that each party should have equal rights? this is the essence of the arguement straw youre ok with discriminating against mean, youre ok with the law being favorable towards women, youre ok with women running from responsibility yet you demonize men who do...do you see how retarded that sounds?
Apparently you cant differentiate between a speck of cells and a human baby b/c you have no point where you believe life begins. If you did you would have a point in time when you believe that the fetus is alive and a baby instead of just cells.
-
The problem is straw you do need to have a logical reasoning for a point in time when you believe life begins, if its some simple arbitrary point with no reasoning then ppl can make the case for infantcide as well, do you understand or you need me to expand on that?
the baby is made up of specks of cells...
No fair to me is equality of options, when there is equality of responsibility...you see the women have the options here straw the men do not...i really dont know how much more clear to make it, i really dont understand how you dont believe that to be unfair and discrimatory against men?
You keep stating they are equally responsible and i agree, but you dont think that each party should have equal rights? this is the essence of the arguement straw youre ok with discriminating against mean, youre ok with the law being favorable towards women, youre ok with women running from responsibility yet you demonize men who do...do you see how retarded that sounds?
Apparently you cant differentiate between a speck of cells and a human baby b/c you have no point where you believe life begins. If you did you would have a point in time when you believe that the fetus is alive and a baby instead of just cells.
Wow...
-
Abortions should be available.
In Norway, these religious nut-jobs have little to say, women can get abortions until the 12th week if they want it. (But needs a doctors approval for abortions after the 12th week).
-
Abortions should be available.
In Norway, these religious nut-jobs have little to say, women can get abortions until the 12th week if they want it. (But needs a doctors approval for abortions after the 12th week).
Norge er landet!
-
Abortions should be available.
In Norway, these religious nut-jobs have little to say, women can get abortions until the 12th week if they want it. (But needs a doctors approval for abortions after the 12th week).
are you for men having the ability of being just as irresponsible as the women who get abortions?
My views dont necissarily stem from religion, and not all ppl who are against abortion are religious...