President Obama to receive honorary degree from Notre Dame

[elts1956]

I don’t agree with this at all. Society has lost a lot from abortion. Maybe a cure for cancer, diabetes, AIDS, ALS, new inventions, improved alternative energy. Many women, men, and families(yes, abortion does affect men, and families too) often turn to suicide, depression, drugs/alcohol, sex, ect, because of abortion. Society has a lot to gain from making abortion illegal(or least setting massive restrictions on it).

Name one darn thing Obama has planned to do to reduce abortion other than passing out rubbers, and birth control with several side affects.

Good for you String. Hang in there.

 

[mapleoak]

That being said, there would certainly be people in the world today who are not here now because of abortion.

This is an effect of abortion, but not at all the reason why abortion is wrong. Suppose for instance, if aborted babies were raised from the dead, this effect would not exist, yet abortion would continue to be wrong. Its intrinsically wrong nature is not dependent on its effects.

In different circumstances, our president himself might not be here. I don’t think his mother would have aborted him even if it was legal, since she was planning on marrying his father, but that’s still something to think about. Of course, on the flip side, our president would not be here were it not for premarital sex either, though that’s not to say that premarital sex is necessarily a good thing.

Similarly, premarital sex is wrong, regardless of its effects as well, good or bad.

Still, paradoxically, there are also people alive today who would not be here were it not for abortion.

You are incorrect here however. Every human being who lives or has ever lived, or ever will live has been willed to exist by God from all eternity. “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you” - Jeremiah 1:5.

Many women have abortions because they are not ready to raise children. They have children later that they wouldn’t have had if they had to raise the ones that were aborted. My ex-girlfriend’s mother had an abortion as a teenager, then met her husband later in college. If she had raised that child, she would have had to put off college and would not have met her future husband, and would not have had her family including my ex-girlfriend. Incidentally, she eventually converted to Catholicism, had six children, and is now one of the most devout Catholics I know.

This is simply an illustration that God ultimately is in control. We either choose to be a part of His will or reject it. It does not take away the fact that an unborn child was killed (who’s existence was also willed from all eternity). Nor does it mean that the other six would not exist.

Abortion can harm men, women, and families, but then, any unwanted pregnancy can have the same effect. A friend of mine committed suicide after his ex-girlfriend told him she was pregnant and she was keeping it.

In the Catholic Church we do not refer to people as:
a pregnancy - this is an event, not a thing. Elementary grammar.
an it - incorrect noun class usage.
for the reason that such are disrespectful of the dignity due the human person.

Improved access to birth control does reduce abortions, and it can’t be written off.

Yes it can, because it is gravely immoral for a Catholic to promote behavior contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Therefore as a Catholic, you cannot in any way, shape, or form, support or encourage the use of artificial birth control. To do so makes one complicit with the sins of others, aside from being a sin in and of itself.

Health education, anti-poverty programs, and better teachers that can steer students onto a more moral path in life, all can help too.

Of course.

Plus, he and Michelle are very good role models for black teenagers, who have high abortion rates.

How is our current president, the biggest supporter of the killing of the born and unborn a good role model for anyone, let alone someone worthy of being the president?

Granted, this has little to do with his legislative agenda, but you can’t underestimate the value of his personal life as a model.

Did you know Obama personally supports the killing of the unborn? His words speak plenty, his actions even more.

If people demanded it, I’m sure it would be possible to come up with a whole list of ways to reduce abortion, short of just making it illegal.

Abortion needs to be made illegal in order to protect the unborn from those who believe it is okay to kill them.

 

[Trader]

Plus, he and Michelle are very good role models for black teenagers, who have high abortion rates.

There is some truth there. Despite a difficult family situation, Barrack Obama stayed in school, stayed out of jail, married and stayed married, and fathered two daughters with his wife after marriage. He is an attentive father who loves his daughters so much that he allowed them to live and even pays to send them to a private school.

If President Obama and his party would present that model as a standard for everyone there would be no controversy over his invitation to speak at Notre Dame.

The main problem is that he does not support the right of other peoples’ children to live. He supports unlimited abortion paid for by all of us who find that an abomination. He supports the use of human beings for deadly experiments and he rejects God’s own plan of the family for others.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

If people demanded it, I’m sure it would be possible to come up with a whole list of ways to reduce abortion, short of just making it illegal.

Thinking of abortion in a different light may help you in this struggle to justify an intrinsic evil toward humanity like abortion.

What if Pres. Obama supported slavery in this country and wanted us to provide money to other countries to support a slavery trade there as well. Would anything he did or said override the fact that he is for slavery and stood for dehumanizing human beings?

Should ND invite him to speak if he was for slavery?

 

[fix]

First, I am not saying abortion is ok, or right, or not a problem. I want to make this very clear. It is a problem, and one we need to find solutions too.

That being said, there would certainly be people in the world today who are not here now because of abortion. In different circumstances, our president himself might not be here. I don’t think his mother would have aborted him even if it was legal, since she was planning on marrying his father, but that’s still something to think about. Of course, on the flip side, our president would not be here were it not for premarital sex either, though that’s not to say that premarital sex is necessarily a good thing.

Still, paradoxically, there are also people alive today who would not be here were it not for abortion. Many women have abortions because they are not ready to raise children. They have children later that they wouldn’t have had if they had to raise the ones that were aborted. My ex-girlfriend’s mother had an abortion as a teenager, then met her husband later in college. If she had raised that child, she would have had to put off college and would not have met her future husband, and would not have had her family including my ex-girlfriend. Incidentally, she eventually converted to Catholicism, had six children, and is now one of the most devout Catholics I know.

Abortion can harm men, women, and families, but then, any unwanted pregnancy can have the same effect. A friend of mine committed suicide after his ex-girlfriend told him she was pregnant and she was keeping it. I don’t know why exactly he killed himself. I know he was doing everything he could to get away from this girl at the time. I don’t think he put much consideration into what he did. He was always impulsive like that. But it turns out the girl was lying about being pregnant.

Improved access to birth control does reduce abortions, and it can’t be written off. Health education, anti-poverty programs, and better teachers that can steer students onto a more moral path in life, all can help too. Plus, he and Michelle are very good role models for black teenagers, who have high abortion rates. Granted, this has little to do with his legislative agenda, but you can’t underestimate the value of his personal life as a model.

If people demanded it, I’m sure it would be possible to come up with a whole list of ways to reduce abortion, short of just making it illegal.

I find most of this troubling. For one thing keeping it legal in no way protects the most innocent in society. To marginalize, or diminish, the rule of law is absurd and a tactic used to misdirect the issue.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

In the Catholic Church we do not refer to people as:
a pregnancy - this is an event, not a thing. Elementary grammar.

You’re being stupid.

I can refer to a pregnancy as a pregnancy. By unwanted pregnancy, I meant a woman who was pregnant and didn’t want to be. In the context I used it, it’s an event, not a thing. I used the word pregnancy because I was comparing it to abortion, and both are events not actual physical things.

an it - incorrect noun class usage.
for the reason that such are disrespectful of the dignity due the human person.

I suppose you must wait around in delivery rooms correcting doctors when they tell new parents “it’s a boy!” that they are being disrespectful of the dignity of the human person and that they should say “he’s a boy!” In the English language, before birth or before the sex is known, it’s correct to use the pronoun “it”. Has nothing to do with any hidden agenda.

You did such a bad job of “correcting” my language, that I can’t take you seriously enough to respond to the rest of your post.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

Plus, he and Michelle are very good role models for black teenagers, who have high abortion rates.

There is some truth there. Despite a difficult family situation, Barrack Obama stayed in school, stayed out of jail, married and stayed married, and fathered two daughters with his wife after marriage. He is an attentive father who loves his daughters so much that he allowed them to live and even pays to send them to a private school.

If President Obama and his party would present that model as a standard for everyone there would be no controversy over his invitation to speak at Notre Dame.

He does present his model as a standard, and I think that encourages others to follow his lead. However, I am starting to think there is more to gain from encouraging people to strive for that model, as opposed to mandating that model by law. You know?

The main problem is that he does not support the right of other peoples’ children to live. He supports unlimited abortion paid for by all of us who find that an abomination. He supports the use of human beings for deadly experiments and he rejects God’s own plan of the family for others.

He supports the right of my brother’s kids to live. I know what you mean, but the gross generalization is dishonest.

He did release guidelines for embryonic stem cell research specifying that only cells from IVF embryos that would have been discarded anyway can be used. I know the Catholic Church is against IVF for that reason, but still, it’s a start. I’m not sure what you mean by rejecting God’s plan for the family of others. Are you talking about gay marriage?

 

[RobbyS]

We do not make the distinction between a 4-week old unborn child or a 30 week unborn child as far as the severity of the act. They are both gravely disordered actions. The emphasis tends to appeal to the emotional argument, as the majority of the population tends to be driven by emotion. To a rational person, bloody images are not even necessary. Simply the knowledge that a completely separate and individual human being is killed is sufficient to determine the wrongness of the act.

In his Roe v. Wade opinion, Harry Blackmin used the term “potential life” to describe the unborn, and by implication claimed that during the whole course of development the unborn child is less than a person. Therefore, he could not be a “legal person” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. But of course he did not address the question: why is a newborn infant “actually” living when so much of his “potential” is as yet unrealized and in the case of the deformed, unrealizable? Indeed, did Blackmun think that anyone is worthy of being called a person unless he was a peer of Harry Blackmun as he was sitting at his desk with pen in hand, writing his opinion?

 

[stringbeanduck]

Plus, he and Michelle are very good role models for black teenagers, who have high abortion rates.

Isn’t that interesting now? Some of my black friends think he’s good model for promoting abortion.

 

[stringbeanduck]

He does present his model as a standard, and I think that encourages others to follow his lead. However, I am starting to think there is more to gain from encouraging people to strive for that model, as opposed to mandating that model by law. You know?

He supports the right of my brother’s kids to live. I know what you mean, but the gross generalization is dishonest.

He did release guidelines for embryonic stem cell research specifying that only cells from IVF embryos that would have been discarded anyway can be used. I know the Catholic Church is against IVF for that reason, but still, it’s a start. I’m not sure what you mean by rejecting God’s plan for the family of others. Are you talking about gay marriage?

It doesn’t matter how “pretty” or ugly someone makes it, murder is still murder.

 

[mapleoak]

You’re being stupid.

Takes one to know one.

I can refer to a pregnancy as a pregnancy. By unwanted pregnancy, I meant a woman who was pregnant and didn’t want to be. In the context I used it, it’s an event, not a thing. I used the word pregnancy because I was comparing it to abortion, and both are events not actual physical things.

I suppose you must wait around in delivery rooms correcting doctors when they tell new parents “it’s a boy!” that they are being disrespectful of the dignity of the human person and that they should say “he’s a boy!” In the English language, before birth or before the sex is known, it’s correct to use the pronoun “it”. Has nothing to do with any hidden agenda.

You did such a bad job of “correcting” my language, that I can’t take you seriously enough to respond to the rest of your post.

This means you have conceded the point, as you have no rational argument to refute.

 

[mapleoak]

He supports the right of my brother’s kids to live. I know what you mean, but the gross generalization is dishonest.

He doesn’t support the right of any unborn child to live. Nor does he support the right of children post birth to live. Did you know he supports infanticide?
State factual information only, please.

 

[Trader]

He supports the right of my brother’s kids to live. I know what you mean, but the gross generalization is dishonest.

He only supports those rights if your sister-in-law says so. That is not a right of the children at all. He gives the right of her privacy, her feelings, and even her irrational fears total supremacy to any rights at all for your nieces and nephews until well after their birth.

While the Democratic Party platform claims to support Roe v Wade, President Obama does not. He wants to extend the right to abortion beyond the state restrictions permitted by Roe for second and third term abortions and to deny the right of conscience to health care providers. His enthusiastic support for FOCA should tell you that.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

He only supports those rights if your sister-in-law says so. That is not a right of the children at all. He gives the right of her privacy, her feelings, and even her irrational fears total supremacy to any rights at all for your nieces and nephews until well after their birth.

“Well after their birth”? As far as I know, Obama doesn’t support allowing infanticide. If you’re referring to the Illinois bill he voted against, Obama has said repeatedly that he voted against it because it was poorly written and contained a lot of vague language, not because he wants to kill babies or anything like that. If you’re familiar with state government, legislators do this all the time, especially the minority party. They come up with a bill that on the surface sounds like it should be a law, but put provisions in it that the other party would never vote for. Then when election time comes around, they point to that bill and say “look what my opponent voted against!” Both Democrats and Republicans do this all the time. Joe Biden did it with his “Violence Against Women Act”. A lot of senators voted against that one, not because they support violence against women, but because it expanded the role of federal courts to an inappropriate degree. But come campaign time, he used their votes opposing the bill as a weapon against his opponents.

My niece and nephew are already born, but even before they were, it’s not like Obama didn’t want them to live. And it’s not like there was nothing stopping my sister-in-law from getting an abortion. There was plenty stopping her: her desire for a family, her family, my brother, her religious beliefs, etc. If we’re serious about combating abortion, I think we need to pursue it through these avenues more, rather that focus solely on changing secular law.

While the Democratic Party platform claims to support Roe v Wade, President Obama does not. He wants to extend the right to abortion beyond the state restrictions permitted by Roe for second and third term abortions and to deny the right of conscience to health care providers. His enthusiastic support for FOCA should tell you that.

In his press conference Wednesday, Obama distinctly said that FOCA is not a priority for Congress or his administration. Is that your idea of “enthusiastic support”?

 

[stringbeanduck]

“Well after their birth”? As far as I know, Obama doesn’t support allowing infanticide. If you’re referring to the Illinois bill he voted against, Obama has said repeatedly that he voted against it because it was poorly written and contained a lot of vague language, not because he wants to kill babies or anything like that. If you’re familiar with state government, legislators do this all the time, especially the minority party. They come up with a bill that on the surface sounds like it should be a law, but put provisions in it that the other party would never vote for. Then when election time comes around, they point to that bill and say “look what my opponent voted against!” Both Democrats and Republicans do this all the time. Joe Biden did it with his “Violence Against Women Act”. A lot of senators voted against that one, not because they support violence against women, but because it expanded the role of federal courts to an inappropriate degree. But come campaign time, he used their votes opposing the bill as a weapon against his opponents.

My niece and nephew are already born, but even before they were, it’s not like Obama didn’t want them to live. And it’s not like there was nothing stopping my sister-in-law from getting an abortion. There was plenty stopping her: her desire for a family, her family, my brother, her religious beliefs, etc. If we’re serious about combating abortion, I think we need to pursue it through these avenues more, rather that focus solely on changing secular law.

In his press conference Wednesday, Obama distinctly said that FOCA is not a priority for Congress or his administration. Is that your idea of “enthusiastic support”?

It sure was during his Campaign. Thank God there was enough prolife folks signing things against FOCA and writing letters or else he may have continued to make it a priority.

 

[Luis_Santiago]

It sure was during his Campaign. Thank God there was enough prolife folks signing things against FOCA and writing letters or else he may have continued to make it a priority.

And do you know what that tells me? He’s willing to listen to the electorate, ie, us. Trust me, he is currently taking a lot of flak from the pro-choice side for saying that. And yet it barely even registered with the pro-life side, who seems too intent on opposing him to notice that he sometimes listens to them.

During the early primary campaign, he did court pro-choice groups. But he had to, if he wanted any chance of becoming the Democratic nominee. You will notice that virtually all of the pro-abortion quotes of his are from 2007 or earlier. He’s moved away from that position since then, and he has tried to represent the broad range of views of the American people. But we can’t expect him to try and make abortion totally illegal, any more than we can expect him to try and implement something like the one-child policy in China.

 

[mapleoak]

“Well after their birth”? As far as I know, Obama doesn’t support allowing infanticide.

Did you know that Obama supports infanticide? (again).

If you’re referring to the Illinois bill he voted against, Obama has said repeatedly that he voted against it because it was poorly written and contained a lot of vague language, not because he wants to kill babies or anything like that.

Yeah right.
Obama’s 10 reasons for supporting infanticide:
wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45553

If you’re familiar with state government, legislators do this all the time, especially the minority party.

Of course, legislators vote in such a manner that will put innocent people to death because of vague language. Sounds like he supports infanticide. You seem to be very easily fooled.

My niece and nephew are already born, but even before they were, it’s not like Obama didn’t want them to live.

He says you could have killed them if you wanted to. That is the definition of support, no? Do you know what support means? One can support something without desiring it oneself.

 

[mapleoak]

You will notice that virtually all of the pro-abortion quotes of his are from 2007 or earlier. He’s moved away from that position since then, and he has tried to represent the broad range of views of the American people.

Is that why one of his first moves in office was to begin funding of overseas abortions?

But we can’t expect him to try and make abortion totally illegal, any more than we can expect him to try and implement something like the one-child policy in China.

I didn’t know he tried to make abortion even partially illegal. When did he do that?

 

[NTOT]

Did you know that Obama supports infanticide? (again).

Yeah right.
Obama’s 10 reasons for supporting infanticide:
wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45553

Of course, legislators vote in such a manner that will put innocent people to death because of vague language. Sounds like he supports infanticide. You seem to be very easily fooled.

He says you could have killed them if you wanted to. That is the definition of support, no? Do you know what support means? One can support something without desiring it oneself.

How true. Seems many people are easily deceived by smooth talking politicians. These politicians do the thinking for such people who blindly follow their leader.

 

[JimG]

In his press conference Wednesday, Obama distinctly said that FOCA is not a priority for Congress or his administration. Is that your idea of “enthusiastic support”?

This is my idea of enthusiastic support.