Obama at Notre Dame: Hey, let’s be open-minded about child murder
posted at 6:43 pm on May 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
As expected, a heaping scoopful of pap about tolerance and dialogue aimed at defusing the issue ahead of 2012. Realistically, this was the only rhetorical move he could have made, but it’s rich to find him urging both sides to continue trying to persuade each other when he didn’t have the stones to use this as an opportunity to make the case for choice. I admit, this isn’t my issue — I’d accept legal abortion in the very, very early stages of pregnancy, before the embryo can feel pain — but I sympathize enough with true-believing pro-lifers to see how insulting the “agree to disagree” approach must be to the depth of their conviction. Huckabee, provocatively, has framed the enormity of abortion as similar to that of slavery; just as slavery had to be expunged nationally via constitutional amendment, so does abortion in his opinion. Once you’ve come to see it that way, how “open-minded” can you really be in disagreement? To borrow The One’s phrase, what “fair-minded words” would be regarded as fair in defense of slavery?
Fox News has the full transcript. I expected a somewhat divided crowd, but watch the very beginning of the speech at Greg Hengler’s site and note how “raucous” the reception was. It stayed that way during the most controversial part of the day, when Obama got his honorary degree: According to the LA Times, “Virtually all of the graduates stood and applauded as Obama received his honorary degree.” I’m giving you two clips, one from CNN of the meat and potatoes about “dialogue” or whatever and the other via Gateway Pundit of the few moments of protest that interrupted him, quickly drowned out by boos and chants from the O-bots in the graduating class. If you’re wondering what your party’s chairman used this occasion to say about abortion — well, no, actually, I don’t think you want to know.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next »
Read up on Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker Movement. It seems that many Christians and Jews are attracted to Communism…I suppose because they view their religious beliefs as being aligned with Karl Marx?
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 18, 2009 at 12:03 AM
I think the one of the biggest threats to modern Christianity will be the ever so tempting Social Justice Programs.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 12:05 AM
True believing Christian’s despise communism. The religious right helped Reagan get elected on conservative principles, not Obama’s policies of Robin Hood.
dthorny on May 18, 2009 at 12:22 AM
dthorny on May 18, 2009 at 12:24 AM
dthorny on May 18, 2009 at 12:30 AM
Truthfully? I think Bambi is actualy a Coward. He’s never been in a fight in his life… and his actions show it.
Most bullys are cowards at heart… and how he has treated people once elected shows he is a bully…
Look at his body language and actions when confronted… the “I won” syndrome…. its not personal confidence in being right… its that he has a big “gang” behind him.
But yeah… I’d like to see Bibi throw down with Bambi…
Or…. PootyPoot…
or… he!!… Joe the Plumber…
or… even the old guy… Romeo13….
Romeo13 on May 18, 2009 at 12:31 AM
Tell that to the 6 million slaughtered by the Nazis. Unless you think they’ll “triumph” from the after-life.
Obama is dangerous.
Notre Dame blows to give him a platform to spout about abortion, but many Catholic women have been pro abortion for a very long time.
clnurnberg on May 18, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Heh! +100
Yeah, I agree with you about the body language part and the bully part. We know nothing about Obama’s failures (they’ll be sealed for eternity) and the failures of his family are glossed over. When he was “successful,” he played dirty – even in Chicago. So yes, the term bully aptly applies.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 12:34 AM
I think Palin would tear up Obama. Unbelievable that someone soooooo naive is running our country.
We can simply talk to anyone and come to an agreement? Some people cannot be talked out of their beliefs by any teleprompter.
A great point made today was that Iran is a country and a movement. The movement is all about the 12th imam’s return pursued by Amanidinajad and the Ayatollah’s in control in Iran. The focus is starting World War 3 and to bring about the battle of Armegeddon which, in the culture, brings back the imam. These people cannot be reasoned with, even by the second coming of Jimmy Carter in Obama.
dthorny on May 18, 2009 at 12:43 AM
By their fruits shall ye know them. (or the lack thereof)
I love Obama’s outreach to the doctor — not changing one iota his inner thoughts, but changing his website to better hide those inner thoughts.
I also like how he got plenty of applause for faux science when he made us pro-lifers into meanies standing in the way of a cure for juvenile diabetes.
Oh well, I do have this:
Even if the 2009 Class of Notre Dame doesn’t feel that way, I do, and it’s a gulf so wide no words from Obama can bridge it.
unclesmrgol on May 18, 2009 at 12:55 AM
Obama: “NEAL BEFORE ZOD…..err me”.
He votes for infanticide, one of few in Illinois to do so and NOW he claims to be for a middle ground in an abortion debate? Does he really think we are that dumb to believe what he claims as his truth? The man is as far left as anyone has ever been in congress and as president.
Sorry, I gotta get back into the lemming line for my equalibrium dose.
dthorny on May 18, 2009 at 12:56 AM
While I am staunchly opposed to homosexuality, but I do agree that physically attacking them or anyone else simply because their beliefs, I am aghast that this idiot community organizer in the WH would compare the plight of gays to abortion. 2 million gays are not murdered every year because they are gay, but 2 million children are murdered every year, IN AMERICA ALONE, simply because who they are. I refuse to call him president anymore. And don’t get me started about his views on infanticide. Hitler now lives in the WH!!!
ConservativePartyNow on May 18, 2009 at 1:49 AM
Anti-christ.
long_cat on May 18, 2009 at 1:53 AM
I think the Anti-Christ would have more experience than Obama, and probably enough lifetime accomplishments to rate an honorary degree.
Kralizec on May 18, 2009 at 2:15 AM
why even mention the issue or any issue for that matter. He should have just made a speech that would inspire and commend those that were graduating, not some political garbage. He can’t honor anyone without promoting himself and his sad and self serving agenda.
Another shameful display of himself…
workingforpigs on May 18, 2009 at 3:09 AM
Obviously I was not being entirely serious. However, there is truth in those words; Obama is anti Christ. Anti American, anti Capitalism, anti Bill of Rights, oh I could go on and on. You’re right though, saying he is THE actual Anti-Christ is a bit of a stretch, what with all the Teleprompting and Special Olympics jokes.
long_cat on May 18, 2009 at 3:11 AM
Looked to me like the crowd was with Obama. One graduate said she did not want the world to think Notre Dame students were part of the protest
This visit was very worthwhile. It revealed how the mission of a major Catholic University has strayed. The University has taken sides with Obama. The religious administrators can now openly follow the Church or their own new faith
This is not a loss but a validation man has not changed
Students will know they are entering a school that does not support Life because it honors Death. The man who fought protections for babies born alive in abortions is certainly a supporter of Death. My admiration grows for the protestors, many of whom have been ridiculed for uears and now seem renewed in bravery to my eyes
entagor on May 18, 2009 at 3:48 AM
Good for Sarah Palin to speak out on this.
She is fearless and speaks the truth to power.
sarahpalinfan99 on May 18, 2009 at 4:14 AM
But a “religious” left without any apparent demands relating to, you know, religion. In fact, the whole sorry lot of the religious left appear to be indistinguishable from most garden variety Moonbats. They certainly aren’t bothered by abortion if it gets between them and their new Messiah.
Kensington on May 18, 2009 at 4:16 AM
Let me see – it is against Federal law to murder somebody? Oh, you mean it isn’t except if that somebody is a Federal employee? Oh….
That means the people who equate abortion to murder are not on any form of reasonable standing to demand a Federal law against aborting any fetus other than a Federal employee.
Abortion is a state issue, just like murder. (And reasonable states would deal with the issue, most likely, by making it illegal. I wish they’d spend some money on making abortion unnecessary, perhaps with science fiction type artificial wombs or simply by means of fetal transplant.)
{^_^}
herself on May 18, 2009 at 6:09 AM
The reported large number of Christians hides the fact that many are feelgood fair-weather types who do not accept any discipline or unpleasant religious restriction on their behavior. They only want to feel nice and warm about themselves. They might as well dabble in astrology or wicca.
Reminds of a scene described in this article:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=631
el gordo on May 18, 2009 at 6:16 AM
There has been a major disconnect between American Catholics and Rome for quite a long time.
This is no surprise.
Now, the Alumni who opposed Obama need to put their money where their moth is a quit funding Catholic institutions that do not uphold Catholic ideals and beliefs. Sadly, that is the only thing that they hear that speaks louder than the Bishop of Rome.
RobertInLexington on May 18, 2009 at 6:31 AM
This event is going to look very different in 20 years. The Church is changing, especially in America. The new leaders of the Church in America are now finding their voices. A big change is coming.
Mr. D on May 18, 2009 at 6:45 AM
Wow, Allahpundit, you just readily admit that you are a pro choice moderate at the beginning of this post. Then you encourage real conservatives, not moderates, to slam on Michael Steele.
Did you not notice that you are a pro choice moderate, Allahpundit? The very same pro choice moderate that Steele is attempting to be accepting of, you are trying to get to people to slam.
Clearly Michelle Malkin, a very strong conservative, who hired you, has the same accepting view of pro choice moderates as Michael Steele. After all, she did hire you and clearly gives you the leeway to post your moderate conservatism on this site.
Obviously some “real” conservatives posting on this website are gullible. So gullible that they are willing to fall for your distraction of pointing the finger and squawking about Michael Steele even as you embrace your own moderate view.
I am not as gullible as some of these others.
Since you have attack Obama on this issue with this lovely title, please answer the question yourself:
Allahpundit-Why is it that you are so accepting of child murder, even if it is only in the early stages?
Isn’t it child murder just the same?
kcarpenter on May 18, 2009 at 6:48 AM
Abortion is barbaric and unnecessary as a form of contraception. There must be A hundred ways to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. So why is this the first one liberals reach for?
Hussein favors murdering children AFTER THEY ARE BORN, if it goes against the “intent” of the mother. He said so. Its on tape.
dogsoldier on May 18, 2009 at 7:05 AM
AP, that caption sums up Obama’s speech perfectly. Even though I’m personally ambivalent on early term abortion, I found Obama’s minimalization of the issue dishonest and condescending. Folks oppose abortion because they feel it’s murder, so to ask them to come together with murderers and find common ground for murder is ludicrous.
petefrt on May 18, 2009 at 7:06 AM
Bingo.
petefrt on May 18, 2009 at 7:13 AM
That’s one title with impact ….
I wonder who he would have felt about the discussions of slavery?
tarpon on May 18, 2009 at 7:32 AM
If the Republican Party wants to embrace anti-abortion as a moral crusade, it can forget about winning elections until the crusade peters out. I’m glad we have a sane man in charge of the party.
thuja on May 18, 2009 at 8:00 AM
Allapundit, I’m way late to this thread, but thank you for a great post. I figured this would be Ed’s topic, but I’m glad it came from you.
Missy on May 18, 2009 at 8:05 AM
(RE: The president’s speech)
Words. Just words.
eforhan on May 18, 2009 at 8:20 AM
Typical RAT! If we disagree then we must be “open minded”… If they disagree then we are simply wrong, bigoted, extremists, stupid, ignorant, fools, morons, rubes, hacks etc…
sabbott on May 18, 2009 at 8:27 AM
Thanks for posting! It’s good to hear from Daily Kos and the DNC talking points once in awhile!
sabbott on May 18, 2009 at 8:29 AM
I love when he talks about tolerance and dialogue. He’s such a good example with his treatment of Rush Limbaugh and refusal to meet with tea party groups.
Obama: My way or the highway
ctmom on May 18, 2009 at 8:32 AM
There is another relationship of abortion to slavery. In slavery a whole class of human beings were written out of the constitution as ‘non persons’. In Roe v Wade and its progeny another whole class of human beings were also written out of the Constitution as ‘non persons’.
eaglewingz08 on May 18, 2009 at 8:33 AM
Ah, but their new religion would have people be forced to recognize their ways and “truths,” and anyone that doesn’t accept this will be labeled a bigot, hate-monger, extremist, and eventually criminal – everyone except fundamentalist from non-western backgrounds.
First on the wholly sack list would be things such as
Social Justice – i.e. HUGE Gov’t Welfare programs
I’m sure Planned Parenthood could find a place on the list.
People like Rev. Wright, Oprah, and radical Leftist Catholics would feel right at home.
Upstater85 on May 18, 2009 at 8:38 AM
Hmm. Hadn’t noticed this as I scimmed — must have been asleep.
Ok, anyone who can’t feel pain is fertilizer, right?
Then it’s time for yet another Josef Mengele type of study where we torture fetuses in an attempt to determine exactly when they feel pain so we can implement Allahpundit’s Protocol. Start at 4.5 months; oh dear, this one acted like it was screaming. Ok, 2.25 months — this one seemed to be flinching just before it died. But wait! There is the “meta-study” of pain in the JAMA, so the question is already answered without torturing a single fetus unnecessarily. The real number is, amazingly, according to the study — nine months!
There’s only one teesy problem:
But scientists are impartial, so this is much foo-foo about nothing, right?
So, Allah, your butt is covered by the other side — this is “worn ground”, as the impartial and precise Wiki puts it.
unclesmrgol on May 18, 2009 at 8:42 AM
Putting Obama aside for the moment. Not being Catholic, it’s taken me a while to grasp the depth of the problems the Catholic church is dealing with. I watched that Jenkins fellow(I hope I have his name correct)in a photo shoot with obama and was embarrassed for the sycophantism I read in the man’s face. Then I listened to a few Catholic priests defending the Notre Dame thing on TV while craftily avoiding actually confronting the abortion issue and the Churches unequivocal rejection of abortion head on. These are frankly or tacetly choosing obama’s point of view over their Churches? It would seem so.
jeanie on May 18, 2009 at 8:42 AM
The fact is, Jesus was quite specific about this…you can’t serve two masters.
Religion and politics do not mix, they have different objectives, leadership qualities, foundation, experiences, and ultimate goals.
The founding fathers understood this, I cannot imagine where a “successful” politician was also a religious leader. Unless you consider the “Middle East”, or some of the Popes in the 1400′s.
Actually the closest would be Israel…but then culture and religion is very difficult to separate.
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 8:50 AM
what part of a middle ground is there that involves killing unborn babies do you want to be on with this guy? There is no middle ground. The fascist liberals solve all of their social problems with death. Why would a Christian accept this premise? God does not.
Kissmygrits on May 18, 2009 at 8:51 AM
Let me get this straight, I don’t want to misunderstand your guys beliefs.
You think a sane man supports the killing of a baby outside the womb?
And you think that killing a baby at seven to nine months by puncturing his/her brain and sucking it out with a vacuum is the sign of a sane man?
I want to be sure that is what you believe…that is what your “sane” man supports.
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 8:55 AM
http://blackgenocide.org/home.html
Bicyea on May 18, 2009 at 8:58 AM
It’s not “anti-abortion”, it is the support of human life we embrace.
We feel human life is precious, not expendable. We are “Pro-Life”. Abortion is just the means to end that life.
You can be “Pro-Gun”, but against killing. The procedure is not what is important, it is the taking of a life.
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 8:59 AM
Obama is feeling pretty good about himself. Yesterday he pulled one over on the Catholics, today he’s taking on the Jews. I hope Bibi wipes that smug look off his face.
ctmom on May 18, 2009 at 9:07 AM
The Anti-Christ only has to be smart enough to raise an army of followers that will do his bidding.
jmarcure on May 18, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Interestingly, my sister’s house guest commented that the trouble with reading the NYT and listening to NPR daily is that when he goes to any other news source he’s already read the story…
Mentioning other news sources left him doubting their credibility…
So Id say not only do they know nothing else, but they want to know nothing else … a well-informed citizenry… will always believe what they read … if it is in enough media sources. Stalin and Hitler would have just adored our modern media.
Friendly21 on May 18, 2009 at 9:20 AM
America is embracing a cruel, unfeeling and narcissistic cipher; yet obama and his ilk are but lynch pins that will feed the demise of this proud republic.
His open and vigorous endorsement of baby butchering for the sake of convenience is an atrocity that will surely speed up the decay of our decadent and disgusting society. For every baby that is murdered via abortion in this country, we are all accountable. These are OUR fellow citizens and we have let them all down with our feeble complacency. Children being allowed to be called “punishments” by our most highly elected official is a precursor for far worse atrocities to come.
Babies are not an issue that should “peter out” so we can win some stupid election. Whoever posted that is a pathetic shell of what you were intended to be.
Ris4victory on May 18, 2009 at 9:35 AM
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see how anyone who claims to be Catholic can support the infanticide president. How does one be an obamaniac all week long, and then go to church service on Sunday and denounce/decry what obama stands for?
My husband’s extended family are all Boston-area Roman Catholics. They collectively absolutely hate pro-life Bush and think he’s evil. They all drool over obama, whom as far as I can tell, is the antithesis of what their religion dictates.
How does a “Catholic” resolve the two belief systems without being hypocritical?
I just don’t get it. I guess I’m the ignorant one? Maybe some Catholics here on this blog can ‘splain it to me?
ErinF on May 18, 2009 at 9:53 AM
If Obama was put on trial for being a Christian, is there any (or enough) evidence to convict him?
Greg Toombs on May 18, 2009 at 10:12 AM
ErinF
They are like Kiwanians or Rotarians who pay their dues but never show up for events or volunteer for fundraisers. It’s just a title with some cachet and easily disregarded. Unfortunately, the church tolerates them because it wants the numbers more than the souls. That’s why nothing will happen to Jenkins at Notre Dame. Catholic In Name Only.
SKYFOX on May 18, 2009 at 10:20 AM
And btw, both have been perpetrated against people of African descent since blacks have a much higher abortion rate than the country as a whole. It’s eugenics.
The “religious left” damages many African-Americans as well. Give them poverty welfare — just enough to keep them dependent — and take away their ambition to excel, maintain cohesive families, and succeed in life. Oh and then have them blame their situation on rich Caucasians or Asians or Jews.
Further, the “religious left” favors the perps over the victims. Keep the child molesters out of jail, let the illegal aliens have sanctuary against those mean bigots who want to enforce current laws, give murderers early parole, blame the raped vs. the rapist. And guess which community suffers most from this garbage?
Further, the “religious left” wants to get all vestiges of GOD out of the public square. It’s a private matter! So what if our founders quoted the Bible more than any other source. Many slave owners didn’t want their slaves reading the Bible. They wanted them ignorant of the promises of God and His freedoms. So now the “religious left” fosters public schools that don’t teach children much of anything, especially Biblical principles, but neither reading, writing or arithmetic! Keep em ignorant. They are easier to control that way. But, of course, they won’t admit that. Rather they say, throw more money at propaganda schools which teach anti-God philosophies and revisionist history.
And finally, the “religious left” feels so badly for the folks it destroys that they want to throw money at every problem. But unlike the religious right, they don’t throw their own money but YOUR money. Jesus never said to rob someone else’s money to give to the poor!
How these people gain votes from the people they destroy is incredible to me. They sound like bleeding hearts, but they are wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Christian Conservative on May 18, 2009 at 10:24 AM
I’m sad, Allahpundit, to read that you could accept abortion in the earliest stages of pregnancy. As soon as egg and sperm join, a new person’s life begins with DNA that comes from each parent’s, yet is different from theirs. From that point on, only time and nourishment will be needed to make that person grow into an adult. In other words, it’s all there at that first moment — and that new life has begun. All of us went through that in order to get where we are today. Yes, the brand-new person is very, very small, but that’s perfectly normal in the development of each human being. It’s just a different stage of development from the one you and I are in now. You couldn’t have become who you are today without being exactly like that. As someone has pointed out, if you think something so small can’t really be human, go outside some night, look up at the Milky Way, and ask how big you are in comparison. Very, very small — and yet, you are still human.
KyMouse on May 18, 2009 at 10:46 AM
I’m sorry, but if you dispute one of the Catholic Church’s fundamental positions, you should leave the church. Just go.
marklmail on May 18, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Obama’s speech wasn’t particularly great, other than he did challenge people to continue the dialogue about the issue. It reminds me of racism, though. It’s so inflammatory, why bother to try?
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Or perhaps we could try something totally radical and unheard of. Like adoption. Or taking responsibility for your actions and raising the kid. I know it sounds weird but believe it or not that’s how we used to do things.
TheMightyMonarch on May 18, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Doug Stanhope, a comedian I’m a little ashamed to like, had a great argument against people who think that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape or incest. Basically you’re saying that abortion isn’t okay…unless the dad’s an a**hole.
And I have to admit I’m a bit impressed by Obama’s attitude on abortion. Most people try to find middle ground by suggesting that abortion should only be legal up to a certain point, say the second trimester (as if a fetus that’s five months and twenty-nine days old is somehow different than one that’s hit the six-month mark).
But nope, ol’ Barry is having none of that. Kill the kid even if it was successfully delivered after a botched abortion. The convenience of society trumps everything. Such a sad turnaround from this:
Reagan on abortion
TheMightyMonarch on May 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM
I wonder if YOUR PARENTS thought the same way about YOU?
ChuckTX on May 18, 2009 at 11:55 AM
If that’s determined to be impossible or so young as to be impractical.
Then what?
Speakup on May 18, 2009 at 12:13 PM
Erin, I’m from a Boston area Catholic family. At least here in New England, most “Catholics”, including just about all of my extended family, are what you would call cultural Roman Catholics, also known as “cafeteria Catholics”. They are not serious practicing Catholics. They do not recognize any absolute religious authority whether it be the Church or the Bible. Some attend mass regularly but most do not. In any case, most of them pick and choose what they wish to believe and discard the rest. What they really are without realizing it are liberal Protestants who remain in the Catholic church out of convenience and familiarity. It’s easy for them to do this because there are so few priests left who will challenge their flock to live lives that are consistant with the Church’s teaching.
frank63 on May 18, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Very rarely do I hear people talking about the real problem: public funded abortion. I think it’s wrong to take someone’s free will away from them but when our money goes to pay for abortions that we don’t know if the baby will be viable, then we all are potential murderers. i’d bet you that if someone wanted to have an abortion they could find private funding or work off that debt…there is a higher law that holds us all responsible for our actions, no matter whether you believe in God or not.
I am fortunate, I was never made pregnant by rape/incest and never became pregnant until I wanted to be.
Christine on May 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM
What I don’t understand is why the Democrats don’t support the rights of unborn children to live. They are claiming to be for the people, yet, if you look at their track record one might surmise that they have now become the Baby-Killer Party. What happened to all of their high ideals?
DL13 on May 18, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Interesting point DL13. What liberalism supposedly stands for is protecting the weak against the powerful so it does seems strange that it cares nothing for protecting the unborn. I think what you have in modern Liberalism is the clash of 2 of it’s pillars…sexual freedom and the need to protect the weak. The former (sexual freedom), won out. It’s more important to liberals that people have the freedom to eliminate any unwanted consequences from sex than it is to protect the weak and defenseless baby in the womb. I really believe that if reproduction was not a consequence of sex then Liberals would be the champions of the unborn.
frank63 on May 18, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Nah. They will support the rights of penguins, polar bears, wolves, amoebas, and trees to the death. But support babies? Never gonna happen.
ErinF on May 18, 2009 at 1:38 PM
I don’t. Many liberals and their Marxist heroes are/were the champions of eugenics. Whether it’s to “breed out” undesirable qualities or to avoid the inconveniences of raising a child, it’s a horrifying religion of death.
Some argue for freedom from government intervention in health matters, but I suspect many of those people are libertarians at heart.
However, underlying the libertarian argument for abortion is the freedom to do to one’s body whatever one wishes, provided it does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another. In order to justify that argument a fetus must be redefined and ultimately reduced to a mass of cells that can be casually excised as if it were a malignant tumor.
Once you have accepted that a fetus is new life, genetically distinct from both its parents (albeit completely dependent on the mother to survive for a time), you can no longer define it as a part of a woman’s body. It is a separate life that has the same rights that a person outside the womb retains. To perform an abortion under this assumption is to take the life of another human being without due process of law.
This is also why the argument to restrict abortions to a specific time limit or stage in development is fallacious. If you can justify aborting a fetus at three months of age, what changes between 2 months, 29 days and 3 months, zero days that suddenly turns the child from a mass of cells with no rights to a human life with all the rights a person outside the womb possesses?
In order to justify abortion you must make the argument that a child is not a child until it has completely exited the womb. Our president goes far beyond that, wishing for abortion to be legal insofar as the mother decides that her child is unfit to live, even if the child is successfully delivered despite the intention of the mother.
It is nothing more than the worst type of eugenics, not just based on quality of life, but the conveniences of others and the pure whim of those who hold absolute power over the completely powerless.
TheMightyMonarch on May 18, 2009 at 1:38 PM
That’s the same argument anti-death penalty feel.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 1:43 PM
I wonder how many only cared about not getting branded as RACIST? Being called a racist is so much worse than being called a baby killer.
katiejane on May 18, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Perhaps, but those who are executed received their penalty through due process of law.
Let’s see what one must do in order to be executed by the state;
1. They must commit first-degree murder;
2. Their rights must be upheld;
3. They must receive a fair trial and be convicted by a jury of peers;
4. They must fail multiple appeal attempts. Only then can an execution be performed, usually decades after the crime was committed.
Aborted fetuses receive no such protections, nor have they committed any crimes. Most abortions are performed simply because it is an inconvenience to those who willfully engaged in an act with very real consequences, and refuse to accept the responsibility of their actions.
In order to justify this the argument must be made that the fetus wasn’t really a person to begin with. That is an issue that will never be resolved to the complete satisfaction of both sides. Better to err on the side of caution than take the risk of killing an innocent child.
TheMightyMonarch on May 18, 2009 at 2:00 PM
I agree that hard core liberalism is a religion of death. I guess I was thinking more of the soft liberalism that constitutes at least a good portion of the Democratic electorate. For many in that category I really think abortion rights is about sexual freedom. Most Democrats I know would not embrace eugenics. They have bleeding hearts when it comes to mistreated animals or even abandoned newborns. Yet they tenaciously hold onto abortion rights. I don’t know how else to explain the disconnect between the bleeding heart and the indifference to the suffering of an aborted child.
frank63 on May 18, 2009 at 2:17 PM
It isn’t a matter of caution regarding something that is unknown. It is a matter of differing criteria between the two sides. On one extreme rights are conferred at fertilization at the other they are conferred at birth. Science can accurately describe the development process during a pregnancy, but the rights question is one where people differ. There is a majority that sees viability as a key point, and SCOTUS has identified that moment as well.
dedalus on May 18, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Um… not true, in so many ways. Federal law covers murder when committed on federal land or if there is another method of achieving federal jurisdiction (i.e. related to drugs, smuggling, piracy, in the military, etc).
Even so, you are ignoring that the pro-lifers were more than happy to have our state-wide anti-abortion laws before 1973. Since Roe – when the liberals insisted on making this a federal issue – state-wide bans have become impossible. Pro-lifers have only two choices: get a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe and Casey, or amend the federal Constitution to either prohibit abortion or allow states to legislate.
Roxeanne de Luca on May 18, 2009 at 2:31 PM
I was sitting in a McDonald’s when I heard President O’s speech. It was almost as depressing then as it is now. Abortion is wrong, Mr. Presdient. Plain. And. Simple.
Aronne on May 18, 2009 at 2:32 PM
I was sitting in a McDonald’s when I heard President O’s speech. It was almost as depressing then as it is now. Abortion is wrong, Mr. President. Plain. And. Simple.
Aronne on May 18, 2009 at 2:33 PM
The Roe overturn is unlikely (Scalia & Thomas probably would with Roberts & Alito maybe, and Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, Kennedy, “Obama pick” very improbable). Also, Obama gets to reset the clock on Ginsburg and Stevens during the next 3 years.
A Constitutional amendment protecting life from conception has a statistically negligible chance of being proposed and ratified (one can quickly point to 13 states that would veto it).
There is a lot that can be done working within Casey or creating another SCOTUS challenge that pushes back Roe in the way Casey did.
dedalus on May 18, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Unless you’re the “vessel.” Then, I think the perspective shifts a lot.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Obama won, and everyone knew his position. End of story, people.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Of course the perspective shifts when you’re the one who’s pregnant. That doesn’t make abortion right.
Listen up, people! AnninCA has spoken. Because Obama won the election, no one should ever object to anything he does or stands for, ever again.
Missy on May 18, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Polls are great, but the best poll always is the actual election.
Obviously, this issue didn’t block him from carrying many Catholic-laden states or otherwise.
That’s all I meant.
And the voters definitely knew his record and his position. They definitely weren’t bothered.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM
I still don’t know his record or what his position is on any given topic.
bridgetown on May 18, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Human Rights vs. Obama
Michael Weiss, “Inhuman Rights”, City Journal
maverick muse on May 18, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Well, on many issues Obama lied and lied. People were confused whether he was a moderate tax cutter or a socialist rabblerouser. Some are still confused, but then half of the idiots out there didn´t even know which party was running congress.
But on abortion the record was as clear as daylight. Which shows that 53 % of catholics don´t give a damn about the demands their religion would impose on them. They just want to feel good about themselves. Like damn Hippies.
el gordo on May 18, 2009 at 3:51 PM
EVERYTHING is above your pay grade, so it seems.
h/t to http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2009/05/obama-the-pipsqueak-did-he-vote-appropriations-for-gitmo.html
kayo on May 18, 2009 at 4:46 PM
True, but I think he somehow managed portrayed himself as moderate on abortion – which he is not – and a lot of folks bought it. It didn’t seem important enough when the nation was poised to elect its first black President, I guess.
Missy on May 18, 2009 at 5:23 PM
should be “managed to portray himself,” sorry…
Missy on May 18, 2009 at 5:23 PM
How does carrying a child make one more intent on having an abortion? Wouldn’t the opposite be true? I mean, I’m assuming that’s your argument but I could be wrong.
I’m not convinced a lot of voters knew his true positions on a lot of things. The media chose to ignore or gloss over several alarming facts about the man. Add to that the reprehensible treatment they gave Sarah Palin as well as John McCain’s wishy-washy campaign, and there’s really no other explanation as to how this man won the election.
I don’t know how many presidential campaigns you’ve been through (I clearly remember every one from 1984 to the present), but I have never seen the media drop the ball to the extent they did with Barack Obama. He has chosen to adopt as mentors a rogues’ gallery of convicted felons, domestic terrorists, racist preachers, and anti-Israel nutjobs. He has supported gruesome post-birth abortion methods. He hadn’t even served a full term in the Senate, and had zero foreign policy or executive experience.
Now this man is in charge of our military and has the ability to sign into law whatever radical agenda a leftist-dominated Congress sends his way. The same man who expresses regret that the Constitution is a document that limits government power as opposed to granting government power. That’s frightening.
With a vigilant media he never would have broken out of local politics with his extreme views and horrendous associations. Unfortunately today’s media is only vigilant about one thing, backing their own horse.
TheMightyMonarch on May 18, 2009 at 6:32 PM
From La Shawn Barber:
Baby Crying During Obama’s Pro-Abortion Remarks
She has a video there.
INC on May 18, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Polls are great, but the best poll always is the actual election.
Obviously, this issue didn’t block him from carrying many Catholic-laden states or otherwise.
That’s all I meant.
And the voters definitely knew his record and his position. They definitely weren’t bothered.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM
You’re kidding, right? The voters knew his record? The voters knew his position? Which voters would they be? The star-struck kids or the star-struck adults? What percentage of voters know their representative in Congress, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, the Secretary of Defense, or 1 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices let alone the O-Hole’s position on the Infant Born Alive Protection Act?
nico on May 18, 2009 at 7:55 PM
60% of Americans thought the GOP ran Congress the past 2 years. \
\\
Again all your posting will not make what you did right.
Jamson64 on May 18, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Anna shows she is NOT a Conservative as she tries to use “trump-cards” vs debate!
will sass u on May 19, 2009 at 8:26 AM
nico’s right. The media did not COVER his record! There were NO hard interviews, there was no SNL lampooning, there was no Roundtable discussion on what Obama stood for…all we heard was
“hope and change”…oh yea, put more air in your tires! Without Fox or Rush and the gang, we wouldn’t know anything about him.
On the home page, they are talking about how the NY Times spiked a major story about Obama and ACORN…go figure. Yet they published a false story about McCain with a staffer that was proved false and the times got sued for it
will sass u on May 19, 2009 at 8:40 AM
Does it bother anyone else that Obama CAN’T actually come out and state his REAL positions on anything? The guy is a flat-out liar and fraud.
marklmail on May 19, 2009 at 9:07 AM
In a quest for “common ground” and call for open-minded discourse on the subject of abortion, President Obama, speaking at Notre Dame, asked pro-life citizens to concede the one point he wishes to discuss in the debate: “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.” From this point, he leaped immediately over all other issues relevant to the human rights of unborn children and assumed that abortion must always and everywhere be unrestricted by law. According to President Obama, the question solely what may be done to persuade women to have fewer abortions. (How the president’s policy of exporting abortion to developing countries causes fewer abortions remains unanswered.)
Yes, we can agree that in most cases, women who choose to have an abortion do not do so without thought and that, in many cases, they experience real agony, both before and after the act is done. (We do not say all women who choose abortion go through this because we have the witness of many who insist that “[i]t’s not a soul-wrenching, hand-wringing ordeal.” See “For many women, abortion is no big deal,” First Post (May 19, 2009), http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/35781,opinion,for-many-women-abortion-is-no-big-deal.)
A genuine debate, however, does not end with one side’s concession of a serious but inconclusive fact. Real dialogue seeks truth as a ground for understanding, and in any good faith discussion, both sides must concede the obvious, indisputable facts. For this reason, it is appropriate to ask President Obama to make his own concession: “Surely, Mr. President, we can all agree that the act of abortion kills a living, human organism?” No one seriously disputes this fact on medical or other scientific grounds, although only a few pro-choice thinkers such as Camille Paglia will “frankly admit[ ] that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful.” See Fresh Blood for the Vampire, Salon (Sept. 10, 2008), http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index3.html. Instead, most pro-choicers–and virtually all pro-choice politicians—frantically try to convert this simple factual question into an insoluble religious riddle, as if they were medieval scholastic philosophers debating the nature of angels: “Many religions have different ideas as to when the soul enters the human body;” “The Hebrew word for ‘personhood’ means ‘to breathe life into;’” etc. Thank you for those pious reflections, but they really don’t answer the biological questions: Is the embryo or fetus of the human species? Does it possess life? Is it an organism genetically differentiated from the mother?
Conceding the obvious fact that abortion destroys a human life does not necessarily, in today’s world, answer the further questions as to whether that life should be given legal protection and, if so, what kinds of protection. However, if the party calling for dialogue refuses even to discuss what his opponent in the debate considers a central issue, one has to question whether he is committed to anything other than advancing his own agenda.
TodoDerecho on May 19, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next »