Barack Obama addressing Christians

[elts1956]

Of course, this is similar logic the Muslims use when they condemn the US for allowing people to say bad things about Islam and not putting them in jail or something. The prospect of us doing that is extremely remote, and it just makes them look ignorant for understanding us so poorly.

This may be true, but it doesn’t make me wrong. And if you haven’t figured it out by now, I’m one of those 54% of Catholics you refer to, so good luck with getting me to do that. To imply that Obama is “radically pro-death” is to imply that he spends a significant amount of time each day trying to figure out how to kill more people. In fact, other than reversing the Mexico City policy, he’s done virtually nothing about abortion since he was elected. And the policy of the US is already to not fund abortion overseas. The Mexico City policy goes a step further, and denies funding to any organization that has anything to do with abortions. Many groups such as the UNFPA receive funding from the US (or at least they do now that Obama is president) and give advice regarding abortions, although they are prohibited from actually using US funding to perform abortions. The Mexico City policy pulls ALL funding from the UNFPA, because of the advice they give, even though in some areas like South Africa, they’re required by law to mention abortion when counseling pregnant teenagers, for instance. The Mexico City policy is just an excuse to stop using US money to fund poverty programs in third-world countries, while feeling good about it. It’s dishonest and self-deceptive, and I think it’s a good thing that Obama rescinded it. After all, the UNFPA has prevented some 5 million abortions in China because of their recommendation of other methods of birth control.

bo hasn’t been given a policy to sign that has been passed by the senate regarding abortion. He just made sure he got the Mexico Policy out of the way and has started working on nullifying conscience clauses for medical personnel. I notice on mamy threads regarding what is abosolute truth and what is instrinsic evil, those who voted for bo wiggle and slither around standing their ground and saying a truth is a truth and an intrinsic evil is such. This comes from clouded minds who use words, such as you know who to de focus a person’s sights on the issue.

And of course I knew you voted for bo. Your left ankle is turned. Don’t think I would brag about it if I were you and claim in the same breath you are a faithful catholic. Small c.

 

[allhers]

Following is a speech given by Barack Obama in 2006 before he was campaigning, while he was still a senator. It’s one of the few instances where Obama talks about his faith and discusses issues like abortion in front of a Christian audience. It’s definitely worth a read.

obamaspeeches.com/081-Call-to-Renewal-Keynote-Address-Obama-Speech.htm

I’m interested in hearing what people think of what he says. And please no comments like “I don’t need to read it to know all I need to about Obama!” It doesn’t make much sense to expect the president to listen to us if we won’t listen to him.

edit: here is the same speech in video form:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

By the way, I read all of this as you asked, right from the beginning, is this what you think he and you are talking about when you both speak of abortion?

youtube.com/watch?v=LiyxFCASdIg&feature=PlayList&p=1D719AEF8790CA52&index=4

 

[Luis_Santiago]

bo hasn’t been given a policy to sign that has been passed by the senate regarding abortion. He just made sure he got the Mexico Policy out of the way and has started working on nullifying conscience clauses for medical personnel. I notice on mamy threads regarding what is abosolute truth and what is instrinsic evil, those who voted for bo wiggle and slither around standing their ground and saying a truth is a truth and an intrinsic evil is such. This comes from clouded minds who use words, such as you know who to de focus a person’s sights on the issue.

And of course I knew you voted for bo. Your left ankle is turned. Don’t think I would brag about it if I were you and claim in the same breath you are a faithful catholic. Small c.

And here is the big difference between us. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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. He’s worked with congressional Republicans, and kept Gates as defense secretary. 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. Rather than avoiding talking about religion, he’s actively engaged the religious community. 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 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.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

By the way, I read all of this as you asked, right from the beginning, is this what you think he and you are talking about when you both speak of abortion?

youtube.com/watch?v=LiyxFCASdIg&feature=PlayList&p=1D719AEF8790CA52&index=4

First, I appreciate that you read the speech. Even if you still hate Obama, at least you have a better understanding of how he thinks.

It is disturbing, but in this country we do use dead bodies for medical research. We do the same thing with kids who die young because of childhood diseases, with the consent of their parents. I’m sure there are orders out there for the brains of children who had cerebral palsy, and while that might be disturbing, I don’t think it’s wrong. Provided the abortion already took place, I don’t think it’s wrong to use the fetus for medical research, since it’s already dead. I think this is more respectful of life than just throwing it in the trash.

What would you think about a mother who has a miscarriage at three or four months and flushes it down the toilet? It doesn’t seem right if you think of it as a person, but at the same time it doesn’t seem appropriate to have a funeral.

 

[Newbie2]

This already happened! 1992 - Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Eight Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. And the Supreme Court essentially ruled that it shouldn’t overrule its past decisions just because the members of the court have changed. It is the Supreme Court’s duty to uphold the law, which includes past Supreme Court decisions. If we want to change the law, we do that through the legislature, not the Supreme Court. Isn’t that what we’re always railing against? Legislation from the bench?

No, but perhaps there’s a bit of pragmatism creeping in here on my part. The functionings of the Federal and State governments bear some resemblance to what they were designed to be. That’s the way the system works, and we have to work within that system. Nothing wrong with working to change the system, and I applaud such efforts, but in the meantime, until the system changes, we work with what we are given.

I don’t think anyone rejects that early-stage embryos are human, just that they should be given full rights as a person.

Hmmm. You haven’t been paying attention then…just go ask anyone from Planned Parenthood if a 10 day old embryo is a human being.

I don’t like the implications here. You seem to be saying that you want the government to change the laws based on a religious argument, and that your position can’t be supported using only secular reasoning.

Not what I’m saying at all. Lemme 'splain. Secular arguments are fine. However, to abandon religious/philosophical arguments is not necessary, especially when one cannot scientifically define when an embryo becomes ensouled…that is a religious/philosophical question that cannot be answered scientifically.

 

[allhers]

First, I appreciate that you read the speech. Even if you still hate Obama, at least you have a better understanding of how he thinks.

It is disturbing, but in this country we do use dead bodies for medical research. We do the same thing with kids who die young because of childhood diseases, with the consent of their parents. I’m sure there are orders out there for the brains of children who had cerebral palsy, and while that might be disturbing, I don’t think it’s wrong. Provided the abortion already took place, I don’t think it’s wrong to use the fetus for medical research, since it’s already dead. I think this is more respectful of life than just throwing it in the trash.

What would you think about a mother who has a miscarriage at three or four months and flushes it down the toilet? It doesn’t seem right if you think of it as a person, but at the same time it doesn’t seem appropriate to have a funeral.

Okay, hold on a second here, I never said that I hated the man, thats an awful strong word if you ask me. I would say that I definately do hate his actions, and that I pray that he will see the light. He defended infantcide, (that means in his opinion, it okay with him that once a baby is born alive after a failed abortion attempt, that its alright to just throw the baby in the trash and let them die)-that is horrendous!! Dispicable, sick, sad, a sin and a shame. I believe people either have no idea what they are doing or they do know and they are evil in their acts and thinking, he voted on it three times, obviously he belongs in one of those catagories and just how far gone he is, only God knows.

Now, there were like four other videos off to the right side of that link that I gave you, besides the Body parts one. One described suction abortion, one dismemberment, etc…did you look at any of those? They are what I was wondering if you and he meant by, to the best of your knowledge, by the meaning of abortion.

In other words, earlier you talked about etopic pregnancy, which isn’t even considered an abortion by the Catholic Church but rather a necessary procedure to save the life of the Mother. If nothing is done, both die. The diseased portion of the tube is cut and naturally the baby dies, no intent to kill the baby is done however, just to save the life of the mother.

Not one embryonic stem cell has helped anyone in over two decades of research but they have destroyed the baby’s life in cases of abortion. Methinks that if they would only do adult stem cell research that we would all be better off. Already those have helped many people. Those with spinal cord injuries, parkinsons, heart diseases and other diseases. I repeat, not ONE embryonic stem cell has helped anyone in over 20 years. I believe God ordained it that way.

I think they just don’t want to admit it, because then they would have to admit a few other things too that they are unwilling to admit.

Why doesn’t it seem appropriate to you to have a funeral? A person has died, and many people have had funerals for them.

 

[allhers]

what should be done about Social Security .

IF we had all those people here that have been aborted since 1973, this wouldn’t be a problem either.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

No, but perhaps there’s a bit of pragmatism creeping in here on my part. The functionings of the Federal and State governments bear some resemblance to what they were designed to be. That’s the way the system works, and we have to work within that system. Nothing wrong with working to change the system, and I applaud such efforts, but in the meantime, until the system changes, we work with what we are given.

This is exactly my point. If we want to change federal abortion laws, we need to do this through congress, not the president. Not only is congress the only body that can change the constitution, but they also have to approve Supreme Court justices. Since past Supreme Court decisions are part of the law, justices are required to recognize this. Therefore, Democrats have a legitimate legal point when they try to block justices who seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. Justices are required to uphold all the laws, not just the ones they agree with. This is part of the checks and balances of the federal government.

Hmmm. You haven’t been paying attention then…just go ask anyone from Planned Parenthood if a 10 day old embryo is a human being.

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.

Not what I’m saying at all. Lemme 'splain. Secular arguments are fine. However, to abandon religious/philosophical arguments is not necessary, especially when one cannot scientifically define when an embryo becomes ensouled…that is a religious/philosophical question that cannot be answered scientifically.

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.

 

[allhers]

This is exactly my point. If we want to change federal abortion laws, we need to do this through congress, not the president…

even someone from Planned Parenthood would distinguish between a human embryo

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.

To your first point, it is the President who chooses and appoints the Supreme Court Justices.

To the second point, that is exactly what their point was!

To the third point, how would you use secular language to tell anyone about how God is the one who gives each of us a soul at the moment of conception?

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Okay, hold on a second here, I never said that I hated the man, thats an awful strong word if you ask me. I would say that I definately do hate his actions, and that I pray that he will see the light. He defended infantcide, (that means in his opinion, it okay with him that once a baby is born alive after a failed abortion attempt, that its alright to just throw the baby in the trash and let them die)-that is horrendous!! Dispicable, sick, sad, a sin and a shame. I believe people either have no idea what they are doing or they do know and they are evil in their acts and thinking, he voted on it three times, obviously he belongs in one of those catagories and just how far gone he is, only God knows.

Ok, I should have said “don’t like” instead of “hate”. My bad. I am aware of the way he voted in this situation, and actually researched this quite extensively. The reason he voted against it is complicated, and I’d have to look up a lot of documentation to explain it, but essentially he voted against it because he thought the bill was poorly-written and the language was too vague to indicate precisely what it meant and what it implied. Since this would take me a few hours, and I’m 100% sure you won’t accept my explanation even if I took the time to do this, I’m going to have to leave it at that.

Now, there were like four other videos off to the right side of that link that I gave you, besides the Body parts one. One described suction abortion, one dismemberment, etc…did you look at any of those? They are what I was wondering if you and he meant by, to the best of your knowledge, by the meaning of abortion.

No, I only looked at the video you posted. I’ve already said a few times that I too am sickened by late-term abortions, and I think it would be possible to make them illegal.

In other words, earlier you talked about etopic pregnancy, which isn’t even considered an abortion by the Catholic Church but rather a necessary procedure to save the life of the Mother. If nothing is done, both die. The diseased portion of the tube is cut and naturally the baby dies, no intent to kill the baby is done however, just to save the life of the mother.

Yes, the Catholic Church only allows indirect abortions in the event of an ectopic pregnancy. However, in the theoretical instance where the fetus was attached to a vital organ, the Church would not allow only the fetus to be removed. There are other diseases that the mother can have, where being pregnant makes her much more likely to die. But these depend much more on the circumstances of the particular situation.

Not one embryonic stem cell has helped anyone in over two decades of research but they have destroyed the baby’s life in cases of abortion. Methinks that if they would only do adult stem cell research that we would all be better off. Already those have helped many people. Those with spinal cord injuries, parkinsons, heart diseases and other diseases. I repeat, not ONE embryonic stem cell has helped anyone in over 20 years. I believe God ordained it that way.

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.

I think they just don’t want to admit it, because then they would have to admit a few other things too that they are unwilling to admit.

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

Why doesn’t it seem appropriate to you to have a funeral? A person has died, and many people have had funerals for them.

Maybe some people do, but this is more the exception than the rule, and from my experience this happens mainly when the baby is born dead, rather than in the case of an early-term miscarriage. I’m not exactly sure why it seems inappropriate to have a funeral. I know a woman who had a miscarriage and she said that even though she was sad because she wanted a baby, it was only the size of a bean and she did not feel anything toward it as though it were a person. In fact, she was upset that she felt nothing for it, since she’s pro-life. Probably there are women that feel differently than her, but I don’t know any of them.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

IF we had all those people here that have been aborted since 1973, this wouldn’t be a problem either.

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.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

To your first point, it is the President who chooses and appoints the Supreme Court Justices.

Did you read my post? I explained exactly why the president and the supreme court would not be able to reverse Roe v. Wade, and indeed they have not.

To the second point, that is exactly what their point was!

Huh?

To the third point, how would you use secular language to tell anyone about how God is the one who gives each of us a soul at the moment of conception?

I don’t know, but if you want to change secular law, then you need to use secular language.

 

[allhers]

First, I appreciate that you read the speech…at least you have a better understanding of how he thinks…

It is disturbing,

Provided the abortion already took place, I don’t think it’s wrong to use the fetus for medical research, since it’s already dead. I think this is more respectful of life than just throwing it in the trash.

Okay, lets back up, I want to speak to these words that I bolded. You said it best yourself, although I took your words out of context, it is indeed disturbing.
I don’t agree with the man on most things, that is pretty evident. The fact that you so casually say that you don’t think its wrong to use a fetus for medical research, since its already dead (EVEN though that death took place BY an ABORTION, just seems to escape you, doesn’t it?)

Then you go on to say, and defend B.O. by saying that its more respectful then throwing it in the trash, which is exactly what he agreed to when he voted those 3 times, you say that he didn’t like the wording and that YOU have researched this, well, don’t you think HE ought to have done as much research on it at least?? Then he could have understood what he was voting for or against. The very fact that he didn’t shows by him saying what he now says…he didn’t like the wording. Don’t you think its important to understand something before you vote on it?

 

[allhers]

IF we had all those people here that have been aborted since 1973, this wouldn’t be a problem either.

AGAIN I repeat this, do YOU have any idea how many people have died by abortion since 1973?? Your answer to me on this later, sounds like you don’t have a clue.

 

[allhers]

By the way, I read all of this as you asked, right from the beginning, is this what you think he and you are talking about when you both speak of abortion?

youtube.com/watch?v=LiyxFCASdIg&feature=PlayList&p=1D719AEF8790CA52&index=4

Here are the others, and since I read your link to your speech, the least you could do is LISTEN to these, you wouldn’t even have to watch it, but, Father uses small plastic models, not real babies.

Dismemberment Abortion:
youtube.com/watch?v=us_y9GP_-DA&feature=PlayList&p=1D719AEF8790CA52&index=0

Suction Abortion:
youtube.com/watch?v=QBOAPleF1t0&feature=PlayList&p=1D719AEF8790CA52&index=1

Now, if you won’t even listen to those, how on earth do you know what you are even defending and why?

 

[allhers]

…

I’m arguing for what I think we can accomplish, NOT what I would do were I the dictator of the United States…

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…

I just noticed this post, interesting use of the word you used there. I thought we were discussing the President?

…and yes I read your post and it is still a fact that the President chooses and appoints them to the Supreme Court.

 

[allhers]

Yes, the Catholic Church only allows indirect abortions in the event of an ectopic pregnancy. However, in the theoretical instance where the fetus was attached to a vital organ, the Church would not allow only the fetus to be removed. There are other diseases that the mother can have, where being pregnant makes her much more likely to die. But these depend much more on the circumstances of the particular situation.

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.

Maybe some people do, but this is more the exception than the rule, and from my experience this happens mainly when the baby is born dead, rather than in the case of an early-term miscarriage. I’m not exactly sure why it seems inappropriate to have a funeral. I know a woman who had a miscarriage and she said that even though she was sad because she wanted a baby, it was only the size of a bean and she did not feel anything toward it as though it were a person. In fact, she was upset that she felt nothing for it, since she’s pro-life. Probably there are women that feel differently than her, but I don’t know any of them.

For your first paragraph I offer this:
I think it would do YOU good to balance your research with some solid Catholic teachings, which you well seem to lack by your answers, (quite frankly it sounds as though you are a puppet for the culture of death if you ask me.)

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Abortion

For your second and third paragraph, I say that they could have arrived at the same place without using embryonic stem cells and stand by what I said earlier and ask this:
What would be wrong with using cord blood stem cells instead? I have also heard that there is a possibility of using extracted teeth for stem cells. Amazing what we can learn if we look to other sources, isn’t it?

For your third and final paragraph that I want to discuss from this particular post I say, get out more and talk to others more. One woman’s opinion and you repeating it says nothing to anyone.

 

[allhers]

To your first point, it is the President who chooses and appoints the Supreme Court Justices.

To the second point, that is exactly what their point was!

To the third point, how would you use secular language to tell anyone about how God is the one who gives each of us a soul at the moment of conception?

For this see post # 88, you do seem to have trouble following what and who says what to you. There really aren’t that many on here responding to you, I’m one of the few actually and I even seriously am starting to doubt my sanity for doing so.

 

[allhers]

First, …

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 I already spoke to your first point, no use in going over that again.

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?

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Okay, lets back up, I want to speak to these words that I bolded. You said it best yourself, although I took your words out of context, it is indeed disturbing.
I don’t agree with the man on most things, that is pretty evident. The fact that you so casually say that you don’t think its wrong to use a fetus for medical research, since its already dead (EVEN though that death took place BY an ABORTION, just seems to escape you, doesn’t it?)

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

I just noticed this post, interesting use of the word you used there. I thought we were discussing the President?

…and yes I read your post and it is still a fact that the President chooses and appoints them to the Supreme Court.

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.

For your second and third paragraph, I say that they could have arrived at the same place without using embryonic stem cells and stand by what I said earlier and ask this:
What would be wrong with using cord blood stem cells instead? I have also heard that there is a possibility of using extracted teeth for stem cells. Amazing what we can learn if we look to other sources, isn’t it?

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.