It can’t be slander if it is true. Friends of Luis and the students, alumni, faculty, and other supporters of Notre Dame all deserve to hear the truth, even if it is unpopular.
Well, there you have your own answer as to why there are abortions: you’re a man and you think because you can’t physically have an abortion it absolves you of any responsiblity. It doesn’t. And this is one aspect of abortion that isn’t strongly addressed.
How do you know that your opinion of ND is the truth? The Truth is that this is an opportunity to promote our faith rather than a knee jerk reaction of proclaiming scandal.
I believe that “Friends of Luis and the students, alumni, faculty, and other supporters of Notre Dame all deserve to hear the truth, even if it is unpopular.” because the Church says so in the catechism:
Don’t be too hard on Kristof, he’s done a lot more than most of us bringing attention and aid to the genocide in Darfur, human rights violations in Burma, child prostitution in Cambodia, etc. His columns are a continual reminder of some of the worst injustices in the world. But you have to admit he has a point. If women have far more children than they’re able to care for, extreme poverty is unavoidable.
If my goal is indeed to seek the truth, then I must look wherever it may be, whether that’s here or reading Nicholas Kristof’s columns.
My point was that the law doesn’t hold up under logical scrutiny; I was AGREEING with you.
That comment was perhaps insensitive, but the only point I was trying to make is that in this day and age, with low infant mortality, married couples have a need to limit the number of children they have.
Here’s another unpopular truth: passing strict abortion laws in the United States would be impossible due to the nature of our legislative process, unless we manage to change the minds of roughly 1/4 of the voting population.
I assume you’re referring to me. This link covers pretty much everything anyone would want to know about the Church’s views on ectopic pregnancies. It does say that only indirect abortions are allowed, where the embryo is removed along with whatever tissue it’s attached to, although the tissue has to have been severely damaged by the embryo. I can’t remember what you had said on that subject.
My point is that it’s impossible for me to benefit in any way from permissive abortion laws.
I wouldn’t expect any girl I was dating to have an abortion. If that happened and I wasn’t married, I would personally push for adoption.
My guess would be a mentally unstable man. Poor kid.
The idea that there are men who see it that way sickens me. That attitude is something we all need to work hard to correct in our families and communities.
That quote has been repeated a lot, so maybe I ought to address it more directly. I guess the main issue I have with it is that it’s vague. Barack Obama has been a good example for Christians in his personal life; in this way he’s not acting in defiance of fundamental moral principles. He has opposed the Church’s instructions for politicians, but he’s not Catholic so no one should expect him to follow them. I’m pretty sure the United Church of Christ, which he’s a member of, has a much more permissive view of abortion than the Catholic Church does. Nobody can think that ND is honoring him because of his pro-choice stance, so the invitation doesn’t suggest support for these actions. I admit that it’s also possible to interpret that the way you have, but I expect that even the bishops of the USCCB would have differing opinions on the matter. But I don’t think their intent was to only allow faithful Catholics to receive awards from Catholic institutions.
Only indirect abortions. Apologies if I was wrong on this point before, the distinction didn’t make a huge impression on me whenever it was I originally read that. The only thing that seems to change is that it makes it more difficult to apply that reasoning to other forms of medical abortions.
I stand up for unpopular truths all the time, but first I have to make sure they’re actually true.
you type [/qote] where you want to end a quote and [qote] where you want to begin it again. Except you spell “quote” right.
So you don’t give him the benefit of the doubt. I guess it’s understandable that you don’t trust him. Obama doesn’t flat-out lie very often, but there’s no question he’s pro-choice.
What I thought was interesting was, Hagee made strongly negative comments about the Catholic Church and ambiguous comments about Judaism. Guess which comments McCain denounced? McCain did initially seek out Hagee’s support, but then changed his mind later. My point is, politicians constantly change their priorities, and I am absolutely certain that the point of that speech was to make Obama seem super pro-choice. Is he? Not as much as that speech makes him sound, I’m sure.
I don’t have a great understanding of FOCA, but I’ve heard people on one side say it just clarifies Roe v. Wade, and others who say it’s going to make Catholic hospitals perform abortions or close. Now I do know for sure it won’t make Catholic hospitals perform abortions, I heard a Democratic senator on the news say they wouldn’t support it if it did. But the bill doesn’t seem like it would actually do very much, and whatever it did do would be heavily dependent on how it was written. I’m not supporting it by any means, I’m just not very clear on its implications.
You keep comparing Obama to people like Hitler, but how about we use someone who is actually a decent human being. Say, Gandhi. According to you guys, Gandhi wouldn’t be allowed to speak at Notre Dame. After all, he was a Hindu, and his moral principles differ significantly from those of the Catholic Church in certain instances.
Great solution there, Luis.
I’m not saying we should limit their fertility, but remember, the woman in the article only wanted two children originally.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. The wealthiest Americans I’m aware of, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, are spending the majorities of their fortunes working on programs to provide clean drinking water, vaccinations, and education opportunities to the developing world. Blaming the rich for everything ignores much of the reality.
It would still be scandalous, but I don’t think even Ghandi was as big of an enemy of the unborn as Obama is. Of course, I don’t know what Ghandi’s position on abortion was, but we know Obama’s.
Ghandi would not have been invited to speak at ND in1920s through the 1940s. He was a Hindu, he had two wives, and he stated that a society should be judged on how well it threated its animals while, simultaneously, he, did little for the untouchables in his own country. It was a different era and it would not have been done because ND was adhereing to its mission statement.
Luis, I have no plans to respond to your “list” of statements.
theamericanview.com
Gandhi preached non-violence.