Abortion is just such an old hackneyed issue to me. Why would I interfere in another person’s medical decisions? I wouldn’t.

This issue will always be one, it appears, that pushes moderates away from the Republican party. Defend it all you wish, but it’s quite offensive to insist others must follow a particular belief.

The issue itself simply makes me tired. Enuf already.

AnninCA on March 30, 2009 at 1:26 PM

Hmm. Interfere. When the state funds something, it is no longer a private matter not brooking interference. Your side gave us the right to interfere by demanding not only that abortions be allowed, but that they be funded from the public till.

Now that they are funded from the public till, and the enumerated rights now include the killing of a child born alive in an abortion facility, I think we have quite the right to interfere here.

You many not like it, but we have the right.

Only someone that is interested in using her child as a weapon against her husband, partner would tell a child that his father didn’t want him/her. Disgraceful.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 12:03 PM

There are plenty of kids on the other side who never got to hear that their mothers didn’t want them but their dads did, because their mother killed them. The reason for their death was — whatever the mother thought ought to be the reason, including use of the death as a weapon against the father.

I’ll always take allowing the “potential” hearing of ugly truths over permanently preventing them from ever being heard any day.

Only someone that is interested in using her child as a weapon against her husband, partner would tell a child that his father didn’t want him/her. Disgraceful.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Only someone who is a straight up coward could take a courageous and graciously told story like the one Newton shared with us and twist it into something as vile as a vicious attack on Newton’s mother.

I have seen the pro-aborts do this time and again – they have no respect for themselves or anyone else and they violate people on the most personal level. Chekote fits this profile well; the things most of us hold as sacred – such as motherhood and life itself; he uses for his obscene commentary.

You keep going, Newton. You keep showing up because on this blog you already have made your mark and made it well.

y-Not…some of us actually looked at John’s record of experience.

I trusted him to not make choices that would further divide this country.

I still think I’m right, btw.

I am not interested in ideologues, of either persuasion.

AnninCA on March 30, 2009 at 7:03 PM

So why do you seem ready to give up on the GOP now? Don’t you think the party is capable of fielding other candidates, of whatever persuasion with regards to abortion, whom you might find acceptable? You seemed to be saying that this was the final straw and you would not vote for GOP candidates into the future. I find that puzzling.

The Republican Party will continue to shrink its electoral footprint as long as they keep social issues – especially abortion – front and center. Unfortunately, too many Republican politicians know that by simply uttering “I stand for the culture of life” they will get automatic votes from the pro-life drones. This is the path of least resistence and the quick and lazy way to get votes. Nevermind, that once in power they do nothing to actually ban abortion. They’ll bring up legislation that enjoys support among both pro-lifers and pro-choicers. The GOP controlled Congress and the White House for several years, did they ever bring up the HLA for a vote? No.

I trusted him to not make choices that would further divide this country.

I still think I’m right, btw.

I am not interested in ideologues, of either persuasion.

I was a long-time Dem who voted McCain this year.
…
And for those of you insisting that the party continue beating it, then I hear you, I respect that, and I’ll avoid anyone taking that side.

McCain is pretty darned pro-life. I wonder why it didn’t bother you to vote for him this time, but it will somehow keep you from voting Republican into the future.

I was a long-time Dem who voted McCain this year.

I may never break my pattern again.

I can say, either the candidate put forth convinces me that these issues are peanuts…..

Or, I’m outta there.

Abortion is a dead horse.

truly

And for those of you insisting that the party continue beating it, then I hear you, I respect that, and I’ll avoid anyone taking that side.

Your choice.

it may be Obama’s biggest public slip up in image building that he went on record explained his opposition to born alive bills because they were missing the neutrality definition in the federal law of ‘pre-viables’ as not rating equal protection as full humans – or what the federal law tactfully calls homo sapiens

the federal law carries the clause: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.”

wikipedia Dred Scott

Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] 60 U.S. (How. 19) 393 (1857), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants[2]—whether or not they were slaves—were not legal persons and could never be citizens of the United States, and that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The Court also ruled that slaves could not sue in court, and that slaves—as chattel or private property—could not be taken away from their owners without due process. The Court in the Dred Scott decision sided with border ruffians in the Bleeding Kansas dispute who were afraid a free Kansas would be a haven for runaway slaves from Missouri. The Supreme Court’s decision was written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.

An Honorary Law Degree from Notre Dame (Our Lady) for the man who fought on the new Dred Scott

5,000 babies are murdered each day in the US.
If you don’t see the contrast in your thinking, I’m not sure there is much to be done but by God himself.

katy on March 29, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Damn, if I’m ever on a debate team I want katy on it with me!

AnninCA on March 30, 2009 at 3:30 PM

No, AnninCA, the point was that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops spoke out against this four years ago, and a Catholic university should be giving a platform to those who exemplify and promote the Church’s values.

It’s fine if you want to remain a “blue dawg” Democrat, but there are likely more examples than subsidizing abortion where you feel centralized government is the solution. The last thing the Republican party needs is your advice on its values, since you admit you put life low on your list of priorities. That’s what makes you a Democrat period.

Is this too small an issue for the pope to address? Somehow I think JPII would have had something to say, even if it were a private message to Mr. Jenkins. I’d like to think so, anyway.

SKYFOX on March 30, 2009 at 2:30 PM

In his capacity as a member of the Holy Cross order, Jenkins should report in some way* to that order’s superior general who, in turn, reports to the Pope. It seems as though a statement from the Superior General should be the next step. I haven’t seen any reports of what the superior general’s view is about the situation. I think he is housed in Rome.

It’s time that the Church make a decision to either rein in this willfully disregard for Church teaching or pull out of Notre Dame altogether. If the Church is willing to close down its hospitals over FOCA, they should be willing to revoke the privilege of being called a Catholic university from places like Notre Dame.

*I found that at least some activities, such as the establishment and dissolution of communities of Holy Cross clery, require written approval of the diocesan bishop, which would be Bishop D’Arcy in this case. D’Arcy also has authority over the parish in St. Joseph’s County that is situated at the University Notre Dame. I think that the argument that he has no say in this — or that the statement from the U.S. council of bishops somehow does not apply to Notre Dame — is a misinterpretation of the situation.

That’s OK.

I’ll stay in my apparent “blue dawg” niche.

I think it is one of those old, tired right-winger issues that drives people away and was the point of this article.

Unless the Republican party decides to move forward, it won’t.

Chekote, that was a classical logic blunder. Tu Quoque. Do you ever learn?

If anything we are learning a lot about you in your answers, repeated errors, and evasions – mainly that you are an Obama supporter and an anti-Catholic bigot. Thanks for showing at least that much.

My point is that they had pro-choice speakers in the past, therefore, disinviting Obama based on the issue of abortion is hypocritical.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Which speakers voted for and passed a bill for abortion rights, and which one also has taken a national platform to support the same?
Name please…

Abortion is just such an old hackneyed issue to me. Why would I interfere in another person’s medical decisions?

AnninCA on March 30, 2009 at 1:26 PM

ummmmmm……maybe to save a life? If life is important to you.
If life is expendable, then it would be a “non-issue” for you. It all depends on how valuable you consider a life, which you obviously have placed on a lower scale of importance.

AnninCA on March 30, 2009 at 1:26 PM

Well, AnninCA, you might even say it’s a wedge issue, huh? One of those emphatic for / against it or pregnant / non-pregnant or yes / no or life / death things kind of things. As tired as you claim to be, you still lifted your pinky twice to voice your non-opinion.

“Present.” Got it.

This issue will always be one, it appears, that pushes moderates away from the Republican party. Defend it all you wish, but it’s quite offensive to insist others must follow a particular belief.

The issue itself simply makes me tired. Enuf already.

Only someone that is interested in using her child as a weapon against her husband, partner would tell a child that his father didn’t want him/her. Disgraceful.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 12:03 PM

It sounds like the mother did the raising and the deadbeat dad did the running. Maybe if the father had actually been there, he could have told his child he loved him / her.

Jill Stanek’s eloquence will be limited as long as she insists on using the term pro-abortion.

Chekote on March 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM

* Barack Obama passed in his first 50 days the funding of foreign abortions with your tax dollars.
* Tax payer money will also go to the killing of Embryos

It is a simple law of economics that when you subsidize something, you get more of it. Right now 22% of pregnancies in the US end in abortion. Obama has taken steps to make that number go up in the US, as well as worldwide. The prefix pro means forward. He moves the issue beyond choice to pro-abortion. This was made clear with BAIPA, something Jill Stanek saw firsthand. The neutrality clauses were there. He lied when he gave his reasons for opposing the legislation.

The abortion lobby is a powerful one in the US, and it has plenty of Democrats on its payroll. IL Sen. Barack Obama most certainly was and is, even as a sitting President. If he enacts FOCA, you can expect the number of abortions will go up accordingly:

1. Partial-birth abortion will now be legal.

2. Parental consent laws for minors will no longer be in effect. Although a seventeen-year-old girl has to have her parents present in order to get acne medicine, a thirteen-year-old can get an abortion without her parents knowing.

3. Laws prohibiting public funding of abortion will be struck down. The American taxpayer will now have to fund something many of us know to be murder.

4. Laws requiring women to be shown information about (including being shown ultrasounds) and alternatives to abortion will be struck down.

5. Laws allowing medical staff and hospitals to refuse to perform abortion on grounds of conscience will be struck down. (Where’s the freedom of choice here?)

6. Laws prohibiting medical personnel other than licensed physicians from performing abortions would be invalidated because they may “interfere with” access to abortion. (Talk about protection for women!)

7. Government agencies and officials are prohibited from taking any action that would “discriminate against the exercise of” the FOCA-created legal rights, with respect to any “benefits, facilities, services, or information,” would leave government officials open to lawsuits for anything that anybody thought “discriminate(s)” against abortion.

Why is this relevant? Are only Catholics in good standing allowed to comment? Is this where Hot Air wants to take the conservative movement?

Chekote: Anyone can comment, obviously. But if you are going to attack the Church, you’d better be certain of its teachings, or you sound morally bankrupt and ignorant. That’s all….