Barack Obama addressing Christians

[Newbie2]

This has more to do with the inexact nature of our language than anything. There are implications of using certain words and terms that both sides try and exploit when devising their language and terminology. But even someone from Planned Parenthood would distinguish between a human embryo and a non-human (ie, animal) embryo.

I think you’re giving them too much credit…either one is just a blob of tissue to them.

My point is that when devising government policy, we need to use secular language. If we can’t argue that a government policy needs to be changed using secular language, then it would seem that our position isn’t strong enough to warrant a change in laws.

Then you’ve lost the war if the other side determines which terms we may use.

 

[allhers]

Dead bodies can be used for medical research regardless of how they died. That was my only point.

**I know that, and its sad because you look right over the fact that a baby was murdered in order for them to be used for that research.

Personally, I know people who have different diseases, one with a handicap, and a few other people with illnesses, I myself, in the past, and for all I know, I may go through it again, the Doctor said that its always possible, have suffered with shingles - I know others that have also. That we could possibly be vaccinated again with the chicken pox vac, or a form of it, in order to be “cured”, would, possibly be one way that may keep us from ever going through that again, possibly, but…guess what? That vaccine was derived from an aborted fetus, and the others may possibly benefit from and with the kind of research you are speaking of and you know what? Not one of us would want any baby to die in order for us to be better or cured, or to be kept free from the pain and sufferings we have to go through when those things crop up, or in some of the more extreme cases, that they have to live with. In fact, every single one, including myself would rather die with it (whatever is in store for us), suffer through it, or just plain deal with it, other than for a baby to have to die for us to be cured of anything.

We can offer up our pain and sufferings for the conversion of people like you and B.O. and the like.**

Yes, but Congress must confirm them first and the Supreme Court’s job is to interpret the law, which includes past Supreme Court decisions including Roe v. Wade.

** No one argued this and I believe we all understand that**.
I was referring to YOUR use of the word dictator instead of you saying President.Look back at your post, you said, and I quote: "NOT what I would do were I the dictator of the United States"…instead of saying President. Or are they the same to YOU??

There are many kinds of stem cells, and the types of cells they can turn into depends on what kind they are. Embryonic stem cells can turn into any other type of cell. Cord blood stem cells and the ones in teeth can only turn into a narrower range of different types of cells. However, they are still very useful because they can turn into bone marrow cells, which can be used for treating many different diseases. But they aren’t the same thing as the embryonic stem cells.

We know that.

 

[allhers]

Again, not really true. Embryonic stem cells are used in research, not for implanting in a person’s body. For example, the technology that can expand the applications of adult stem cells was developed using embryonic stem cell research. In addition, scientists are discovering that many cancers turn on genes that are normally only active in embryonic development. This has many applications for treating cancer, but there’s no way this could have been discovered if scientists couldn’t study embryonic cells to determine what genes are turned on in them. I think this is more an example of the pro-life movement choosing words that make it appear that embryonic stem cell research is useless, rather than an example of divine intervention.

This statement could also apply to your unwillingness to admit that embryonic stem-cell research has been useful to past research.

Well, I think you need to do further research on what you claim here and one last thing for now…

Since you claim to be Catholic, you ought to know this:
You cannot do evil so that good can come of it.

 

[elts1956]

And here is the big difference between us. Not much difference between you a me. You see the world in multi colors, colors so distracting you can’t choose which carries Absolute Truths. You see the world in black and white. People are either with us or against us; there’s no middle ground. Things are either always good or always evil. You generalize when you say I don’t believe in a middle ground for any issues. If Barack Obama doesn’t want to put an end to abortions, then he clearly must want to make as many women have abortions as he possibly can. Of course he isn’t MAKING them have abortions, but his laxity in the law is certainly excusing them. He doesn’t know what absolute truth and intrinsic evil are either. You two fit glove in hand. It is easier for you to understand the world when you don’t have to admit that questions exist to which there are no simple answers. You sometimes concede that there are problems like this, but you prefer not to think about them. Another generalization.

For example, what should be done about Social Security and Medicare? These programs are roughly half of the Federal government’s budget, and people are living longer and using these programs for longer. In addition, the cost of medical care is skyrocketing. This is a question there isn’t a simple answer to, but you probably have one anyway. If not, you’d probably rather just not think about these problems. Basically, I hold my breath that we don’t all go down the drain with Soc. Sec. due to this being mishandled for decades.

Barack Obama thinks in a similar way to how I do, which is part of the reason I voted for him. He is willing to concede that his own party doesn’t have all the answers. I hope no one has EVER believed ANY party has ALL the answers.

He’s worked with congressional Republicans, and kept Gates as defense secretary. Gates doesn’t have to give his views, nor vote on abortion issues either. He just released a policy saying that the only embryonic stem cells that can be used for research are ones that would have been discarded anyway. WHEN? I think you are talking about one that was already in effect and he signed it along with several other policies. Where is your source? I’ll find mine if you wish. Rather than avoiding talking about religion, he’s actively engaged the religious community. Who did he talk to in the Catholic Church? And better yet, which Catholic clergy has he agreed with? He’s taken foreign policy steps that recognize that just because the US is the most powerful nation in the world, it doesn’t mean we should walk all over other countries. But he also understands that our position carries a lot of responsibility and we need to use our power carefully. I am cautiously watching his foreign policy. So far, not bad.

I appreciate this practicality in addressing problems, and it’s a welcome change from the ideological litmus tests of the Bush administration. This type of policy did a lot of damage to the US and to the world, and now Obama is tasked with cleaning up this mess. And from the looks of it,he’s doing a good job of that. Depends on your moral stance on Intrinsic Evil and Absolute Truths

 

[Luis_Santiago]

As to your second point, even YOUR source that you gave, (see MY post on post # 77 where I addressed this.) doesn’t claim what you said here for the reasons why women have abortions, do you even read your own sources?

I tried to lump a bunch of the categories together, by saying that most women have abortions because, for whatever reason, they don’t think they are at a point in their lives where raising a child would work.

**I know that, and its sad because you look right over the fact that a baby was murdered in order for them to be used for that research.

Personally, I know people who have different diseases, one with a handicap, and a few other people with illnesses, I myself, in the past, and for all I know, I may go through it again, the Doctor said that its always possible, have suffered with shingles - I know others that have also. That we could possibly be vaccinated again with the chicken pox vac, or a form of it, in order to be “cured”, would, possibly be one way that may keep us from ever going through that again, possibly, but…guess what? That vaccine was derived from an aborted fetus, and the others may possibly benefit from and with the kind of research you are speaking of and you know what? Not one of us would want any baby to die in order for us to be better or cured, or to be kept free from the pain and sufferings we have to go through when those things crop up, or in some of the more extreme cases, that they have to live with. In fact, every single one, including myself would rather die with it (whatever is in store for us), suffer through it, or just plain deal with it, other than for a baby to have to die for us to be cured of anything.

We can offer up our pain and sufferings for the conversion of people like you and B.O. and the like.**

I’m not saying it was ok to abort the baby. Far from it. But if the choice were strictly between using the body for medical research or not using it, I’d have to go with the medical research.

** No one argued this and I believe we all understand that.
I was referring to YOUR use of the word dictator instead of you saying President.Look back at your post, you said, and I quote: “NOT what I would do were I the dictator of the United States”…instead of saying President. Or are they the same to YOU??**

I was pointing out that the President doesn’t have the power to reverse Roe v. Wade. In order for a person to singlehandedly overturn Roe v. Wade, he would have to be a dictator, hence my use of that word.

We know that.

Ok. I wanted to make sure, since it seemed like you were equating the two.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

He just released a policy saying that the only embryonic stem cells that can be used for research are ones that would have been discarded anyway

. WHEN? I think you are talking about one that was already in effect and he signed it along with several other policies. Where is your source? I’ll find mine if you wish.
americandailyreview.com/home-features-articles-blog/2009/4/19/embryonic-stem-cells-obamas-first-bi-partisan-move.html

Earlier in the campaign, Barack Obama had to court the pro-choice special interest groups, because as a Democrat you need to, or you have little chance of winning elections. But now that Obama is president, he doesn’t need them anymore. Now that he’s president, I think his actions and positions are a better indicator of his true priorities. This shows he’s willing to compromise on these issues.

 

[elts1956]

americandailyreview.com/home-features-articles-blog/2009/4/19/embryonic-stem-cells-obamas-first-bi-partisan-move.html

Earlier in the campaign, Barack Obama had to court the pro-choice special interest groups, because as a Democrat you need to, or you have little chance of winning elections. But now that Obama is president, he doesn’t need them anymore. Now that he’s president, I think his actions and positions are a better indicator of his true priorities. This shows he’s willing to compromise on these issues.

So far he hasn’t compromised on partial birth abortions or any other measure of abortion. I am still waiting to see if common sense over rides the sense of power regarding the Conscience clauses for medical personel.

As far as compromising on the use of embryos, he isn’t saying anymore than President Bush said. Ya, think he’s reading something other than Muslim books?

 

[mapleoak]

%between% Earlier in the campaign, Barack Obama had to court the pro-choice special interest groups, because as a Democrat you need to, or you have little chance of winning elections.

So that would make him a a liar.

But now that Obama is president, he doesn’t need them anymore.
Now that he’s president, I think his actions and positions are a better indicator of his true priorities. This shows he’s willing to compromise on these issues.

And which actions has he done that shows that he now respects the lives of the unborn in any way, shape, or form. That he was only lying that he hates the unborn in order to get elected?

 

[Luis_Santiago]

So far he hasn’t compromised on partial birth abortions or any other measure of abortion. I am still waiting to see if common sense over rides the sense of power regarding the Conscience clauses for medical personel.

Partial-birth abortions are currently illegal, and he hasn’t done anything as president to reverse that. I’d count that as a compromise.

As far as compromising on the use of embryos, he isn’t saying anymore than President Bush said. Ya, think he’s reading something other than Muslim books?

That’s what a compromise is. You take a position where neither side is 100% happy with the result, but both sides have much of what they want. You honestly think he’s a Muslim?

So that would make him a a liar.

Here’s the problem: if a politician tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth all of the time, there is no way he can ever be president. Period. But politicians are allowed to prioritize. In Obama’s case, he is definitely pro-choice, but changing abortion laws to be more permissive than under Bush is clearly not a top priority for him.

And which actions has he done that shows that he now respects the lives of the unborn in any way, shape, or form. That he was only lying that he hates the unborn in order to get elected?

He’s added “reducing the number of abortions” to the DNC party platform, and introduced the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research I just linked to. And seriously, “hating the unborn”? No need to be ridiculous.

 

[allhers]

First, this avoids the question. Dwelling on what we could have done in the past isn’t of much use when devising government policy.

Second, it isn’t even true. Most women who have abortions do it because they are not in a position where they are able to properly raise a child. I’m not defending them, but odds are that if all of these children were born, they would be a lot more likely to be raised in poverty, be affected by their mother’s drug use, and not feel loved when growing up. All of these things make them less likely to be productive, and therefore contribute to social security, later in life. Plus, this doesn’t take into account that most women stop working or work less when they give birth, and thus don’t contribute to SS or Medicare. In addition, many abortions are because of severe birth defects that will essentially make it impossible for the child to ever lead a productive life. I’m going to assume that you don’t think these abortions should happen even if it would improve the funding of social security and Medicare. My point is that your answer is a cop-out, and that there isn’t a simple solution to the problem.

Since Roe V Wade, in 1973, when abortions became legal here, close to 50 million babies that we know of, have died in this country alone, and that is just the ones from surgical abortions, so common sense tells us many, many more than 50 million have died. If I had to guess, I’d say over 1 million per year.

Now, if you don’t think that many people could have helped contribute to SS all these years, you are the one sadly deluded.

My point is that** I wouldn’t want any child aborted for ANY reason, nor for embroynic stem cells to be used, since a baby has to die in order for that to happen**! A baby shouldn’t have to die in order for things to improve in this world!!! In fact, just the opposite is true.

…and I’m going to assume that you like the idea of Medicare paying for abortions because you deem those women a bunch of drug-taking, low income no goods who need to have their children murdered in their wombs. At least that’s what it sounds like you are saying based on your posts. A total lack of love, I may add. Can’t you and others like you find a better way to help them?

… Blessed Mother Teresa is right, she said: "By destroying the unborn child, we are destroying the presence of God. We have destroyed love. We have destroyed the most sacred thing that a human being can have: the joy of loving and joy of being loved."

source:piercedhearts.org/purity_heart_morality/mother_teresa_address_united_nations.htm

 

[Luis_Santiago]

…and I’m going to assume that you like the idea of Medicare paying for abortions because you deem those women a bunch of drug-taking, low income no goods who need to have their children murdered in their wombs. At least that’s what it sounds like you are saying based on your posts. A total lack of love, I may add. Can’t you and others like you find a better way to help them?

… Blessed Mother Teresa is right, she said: "By destroying the unborn child, we are destroying the presence of God. We have destroyed love. We have destroyed the most sacred thing that a human being can have: the joy of loving and joy of being loved."

I knew you would do this. You claimed that if abortion was illegal, social security and medicare would not be having financial problems. This isn’t true at all, and I gave some reasons why. In fact, statistics seem to show that poverty and crime decreased in areas where abortion became available after Roe v. Wade:

pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

Now, you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I’m using this information to justify abortion. I am not. I’m only using it to point out the flaw in your assertion that our nation wouldn’t be having financial problems right now if abortion had remained illegal. My goal is still to find legitimate secular arguments for ending abortion, but your purported connection between social security and abortion isn’t one of them.

 

[allhers]

First, this avoids the question. Dwelling on what we could have done in the past isn’t of much use when devising government policy.

Second, it isn’t even true. Most women who have abortions do it because they are not in a position where they are able to properly raise a child. I’m not defending them, but odds are that if all of these children were born, they would be a lot more likely to be raised in poverty, be affected by their mother’s drug use, and not feel loved when growing up. All of these things make them less likely to be productive, and therefore contribute to social security, later in life. Plus, this doesn’t take into account that most women stop working or work less when they give birth, and thus don’t contribute to SS or Medicare. In addition, many abortions are because of severe birth defects that will essentially make it impossible for the child to ever lead a productive life. **I’m going to assume that you don’t think these abortions should happen even if it would improve the funding of social security and Medicare. ** My point is that your answer is a cop-out, and that there isn’t a simple solution to the problem.

I didn’t jump to any conclusions, I based it on what you yourself said. (I bolded it above for you so that you wouldn’t miss it.)

At least in that last sentance, you assumed right.

 

[allhers]

Here’s a couple of other things you might want to read up on.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042301.html

esciencenews.com/articles/2009/04/23/a.major.breakthrough.generating.safer.therapeutic.stem.cells.adult.cells

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Here’s a couple of other things you might want to read up on.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042301.html

esciencenews.com/articles/2009/04/23/a.major.breakthrough.generating.safer.therapeutic.stem.cells.adult.cells

Well, I guess we can all breathe a sigh of relief that Obama won the primary against Hillary Clinton! I worked on the Obama campaign during the primary, and Hillary’s people were attacking him for not being pro-choice enough. It was working, to an extent, and she is definitely more pro-choice than Obama. This was one of the problems with having her as secretary of state, she has her own agenda and isn’t willing to defer to Obama’s. That being said, abortion is definitely a higher priority for her than him.

As for the stem cell research, that is really interesting, but they definitely needed to do the research on embryonic cells in order to be able to do this. This is pretty new though, so it’ll take a while before it’s refined enough to replace embryonic stem cells in research. It does raise questions though, since this technology could also be used to create human clones.

As far as secular reasons to make abortion illegal, about the best one I’ve been able to come up with is that access to abortion permits a greater degree of irresponsibility. In fact, it seems that irresponsible women tend to be even more irresponsible if they think they can just have an abortion if they get pregnant. This can lead to the spread of diseases like HIV and the like.

 

[elts1956]

Partial-birth abortions are currently illegal, and he hasn’t done anything as president to reverse that. I’d count that as a compromise.

That’s what a compromise is. You take a position where neither side is 100% happy with the result, but both sides have much of what they want. You honestly think he’s a Muslim?

Here’s the problem: if a politician tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth all of the time, there is no way he can ever be president. Period. But politicians are allowed to prioritize. In Obama’s case, he is definitely pro-choice, but changing abortion laws to be more permissive than under Bush is clearly not a top priority for him. :bigyikes: Clearly? So that is why I am now “contributing” my taxes to help clinics in foreign countries who cannot receive any of my taxes for health services unless they include abortion in their services.

He’s added “reducing the number of abortions” to the DNC party platform, and introduced the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research I just linked to. And seriously, “hating the unborn”? No need to be ridiculous.

No, I have to agree he doesn’t hate the unborn, he doesn’t bother with anyone he doesn’t consider human and he doesn’t know when life begins, because that decision is above his pay grade.Of course he doesn’t realize that life has been scientifically proven by qualified scientiststo begin at conception, not by unqualified politicians.

 

[elts1956]

Partial-birth abortions are currently illegal, and he hasn’t done anything as president to reverse that. I’d count that as a compromise.

That’s what a compromise is. You take a position where neither side is 100% happy with the result, but both sides have much of what they want. You honestly think he’s a Muslim? Compromise, or relativism??

Here’s the problem: if a politician tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth all of the time, there is no way he can ever be president. Period. But politicians are allowed to prioritize. In Obama’s case, he is definitely pro-choice, but changing abortion laws to be more permissive than under Bush is clearly not a top priority for him.

He’s added “reducing the number of abortions” to the DNC party platform, and introduced the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research I just linked to. And seriously, “hating the unborn”? No need to be ridiculous.

 

[elts1956]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy
Granted, most ectopic pregnancies result in miscarriages, but in the ones that don’t, abortions are usually necessary to save the mother’s life. The Church doesn’t consider them abortions.
No. It’s off-topic and I have other things to do.

I’m arguing for what I think we can accomplish, NOT what I would do were I the dictator of the United States. Clearly, a majority of Americans support allowing abortion at least some of the time. Congress is the only branch of the Federal government that can reverse Roe v. Wade. Congress has to confirm Supreme Court justices as well, so we can’t rely solely on a sympathetic president.

Just being against something doesn’t mean anything if you won’t do anything to change it.

 

[cwsmith]

I am beginning to dislike the current president. He is starting another war and he is pro-abortion. So what this tells me is the increase of dead children (crippled, burned, dead in a hospital waste basket, et cetera) on a mass scale does not effect his conscience. Coming up on a million dead innocent civilians in the Iraq war, by the way.

We wasted the power of a revolution on this. I was hoping on the black masses (and some of us white folk too) rioting in the streets after McCain won. But alas, the masses have taken a metaphorical sedative.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

I am beginning to dislike the current president. He is starting another war and he is pro-abortion. So what this tells me is the increase of dead children (crippled, burned, dead in a hospital waste basket, et cetera) on a mass scale does not effect his conscience. Coming up on a million dead innocent civilians in the Iraq war, by the way.

Well, Obama was the only major candidate in the primaries who opposed the war in Iraq since before it started. Even the Pope has said that “the vase is already broken” as far as Iraq, and now we need to stay there to put it back together.

We wasted the power of a revolution on this. I was hoping on the black masses (and some of us white folk too) rioting in the streets after McCain won. But alas, the masses have taken a metaphorical sedative.

I don’t get it. You wanted McCain to win so there would be riots?

Clearly? So that is why I am now “contributing” my taxes to help clinics in foreign countries who cannot receive any of my taxes for health services unless they include abortion in their services.

I think you’re getting confused here. Obama isn’t requiring funded NGOs to perform abortions, he’s just no longer disqualifying NGOs that do abortion counseling from receiving US aid. It’s a huge difference. Part of Republican strategy is twisting words around so that people who are easily confused end up thinking government policy is something it isn’t. For instance, the “death tax” is a federal inheritance tax on people who have a net worth of more than a few million dollars. But one woman I talked to thought that this tax meant that if her husband died, she would have to pay a tax, even though their combined net worth was way less than than a million dollars.

No, I have to agree he doesn’t hate the unborn, he doesn’t bother with anyone he doesn’t consider human and he doesn’t know when life begins, because that decision is above his pay grade.Of course he doesn’t realize that life has been scientifically proven by qualified scientiststo begin at conception, not by unqualified politicians.

Ask a bunch of those scientists who say that life begins at conception, whether human embryos should be entitled to full protection under the law as human beings from the moment of conception, and I doubt many will agree. Obama’s “pay grade” response is probably the only part you know from his response in that interview, because it was the part that, taken out of context, showed him in the worst light. Do you know what his full answer was? Do you even know what the question was without having to look it up?

Compromise, or relativism??

“Compromise” in this context, is something secular governments have to do all the time. “Relativism” is something Christians should avoid in their personal lives. They’re totally different things.

 

[elts1956]

Well, Obama was the only major candidate in the primaries who opposed the war in Iraq since before it started. Even the Pope has said that “the vase is already broken” as far as Iraq, and now we need to stay there to put it back together.

I don’t get it. You wanted McCain to win so there would be riots?

I think you’re getting confused here. Obama isn’t requiring funded NGOs to perform abortions, he’s just no longer disqualifying NGOs that do abortion counseling from receiving US aid. It’s a huge difference. Part of Republican strategy is twisting words around so that people who are easily confused end up thinking government policy is something it isn’t. For instance, the “death tax” is a federal inheritance tax on people who have a net worth of more than a few million dollars. But one woman I talked to thought that this tax meant that if her husband died, she would have to pay a tax, even though their combined net worth was way less than than a million dollars.Ask a bunch of those scientists who say that life begins at conception, whether human embryos should be entitled to full protection under the law as human beings from the moment of conception, and I doubt many will agree. Obama’s “pay grade” response is probably the only part you know from his response in that interview, because it was the part that, taken out of context, showed him in the worst light. Do you know what his full answer was? Do you even know what the question was without having to look it up?

“Compromise” in this context, is something secular governments have to do all the time. “Relativism” is something Christians should avoid in their personal lives. They’re totally different things.

Not when confronted with life and death issues. In that respect I would say they are much alike.

Yeah not REQUIRING, just making the funds available. I would say that is an action of encouragement wouldn’t you?

I don’t know why you insist on bringing politics into my conversations with you. When I talk bo, I am talking morality, not status. ditto if I talk McCain, or any other politician.

Why should I ask a bunch of scientist for their “opinion”. If it is only through the law and not people’s conscience that the unborn are protected, then the law should protect them. It is a tragedy the morality in this country has fallen so low, we need another law to protect the most vulnerable. Fifty or sixty years ago, when humanity had a more stable moral compass, when a truth was known and accepted as a truth, this wouldn’t have been necessary. Humanity knew intuitively, cell memory, or whatever, that human offspring needed protection

Give me the full statement of bo regarding his inability to judge when human life began. The less I see of the man personally, the better I like it. I suppose you will come back and say I really should open my eyes and mind to the positive aspects of the man, or I will remain eternally in ignorance. Go ahead.

A LIE IS A LIE EVEN IF EVERYONE BELIEVES IT
A TRUTH IS A TRUTH EVEN IF NO ONE BELIEVES IT