Vatican newspaper trumpets Obama’s “common ground” message on abortion
posted at 8:31 pm on May 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
There must be some vestigial loyalty to the Church buried deep in my disbelieving heart because I find this so disappointing.
The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano said Obama’s speech at the leading Catholic university on Sunday confirmed what he had said at a recent news conference — that signing the so-called Freedom of Choice Act in the U.S. Congress wasn’t his highest legislative priority. The bill would protect a woman’s right to have a child or end a pregnancy…
The article didn’t mention the protest by dozens of U.S. Catholic bishops who denounced Notre Dame for honoring Obama because his abortion rights record clashes with fundamental church teaching.
Instead, it simply quoted Obama as inviting all Americans to work together to reduce the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies, and concluded he was searching for common ground on the “delicate question of abortion.”…
In addition, L’Osservatore Romano gave Obama a positive review after his first 100 days in office, saying in a front-page editorial that even on ethical questions Obama hadn’t confirmed the “radical” new direction he had discussed during the campaign.
Partisanship aside, and duly noting the political delicacy involved here in not wanting to attack a head of state, can the house organ of the Catholic Church really not muster anything more critical than this about a guy as radically pro-choice as Obama? The idea that they’re clinging to the fact that he hasn’t said he won’t sign the Freedom of Choice Act but merely that it’s not his highest priority is so pathetic, it’d make Doug Kmiec blush. Slublog managed to produce a more righteous editorial last night in our Greenroom, during odd hours away from his kids. I get that the Church doesn’t want to alienate The One’s liberal Catholic supporters, but I suspect those supporters have already made peace with the idea that disapproving sounds about the president’s position on life are bound to emanate from the Vatican now and again. If the Church won’t even stand up for the bishops who spoke out on an issue as fundamental as life, what will it stand up for?
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 2 3 Next »
I’ll ask this question: What good are all of the rights that the liberals are so constantly trumpeting if you don’t have the right to life?
If someone can decide that a baby should not be born because it would be inconvenient, what will stop someone from offing an older person because he or she is now inconvenient (the Peter Singer syndrome)?
If there is no right to life, nothing else matters.
either orr on May 18, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Here’s a link to Time Magazine from Jan. 2009
Mulligan on May 18, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Me too. I don’t even think the right to kill people we don’t want to have to feed, support and take care of should stop at birth. I say we should be allowed to kill them up to, oh say 35 or 40 years old. Maybe longer. I don’t see why mothers should have an exclusive right on this either. Fathers, grandparents and the guy who owns the house that the little brat breaks the window in with a baseball. They’re just kids after all, and it ain’t like there is any shortage of them.
Or maybe there should be some limits? Ya think?
MikeA on May 18, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Dude, it’s a newspaper. Christ never guaranteed us guidance for our newspapers.
Gaunilon on May 18, 2009 at 10:04 PM
You’re using the same tactic as Obama here. Anyone who doesn’t take his position is an ideologue. For you, anyone who thinks that abortion violates the sanctity of life is a zealot.
I, on the other hand, think that anyone who would ask that the infant they carry in their womb be dismembered and vacuumed out is a zealot. As is anyone who would want to allow an infant born alive in a botched abortion die without medical help, as if it were roadkill. Same for a person who would elect to abort a fetus because it’s the wrong sex.
So I guess, Ann, that zealotry is in the eye of the beholder.
ProfessorMiao on May 18, 2009 at 10:06 PM
The types of examples you offer regard individuals already born. I’m actually a pretty big proponent of children’s rights. But we don’t want to start another fuss.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Yes, the liturgy has been changed. But on solemnly declared doctrines of faith and morals, I have yet to be informed of any changes.
Here is a tract clarifying apparent “changes” in the Church’s teachings.
In case you’re referring to apparent discrepancies in what different Popes have said, I suggest you read this explanation of what Papal Infallibility actually means (it doesn’t mean papal impeccability).
Okay, I’ve spent too much time on Hotair today and I really should leave. We won’t convince each other of our beliefs today, but God is patient, and so should we be.
MedSchoolCatholic on May 18, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Just a question here, am I talking mostly to men?
Just curious.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 10:08 PM
You are right to be disappointed AllahPundit. The Vatican should be stating what is moral and what is not. In no way is hiding behind ambiguous rhetoric from baby killer Obama to score political points a just thing for the church. They need to take a definite stand and fight the growing evil. Otherwise they become a part of it.
chicagojedi on May 18, 2009 at 10:08 PM
There’s nothing conservative about modern Catholicism. It is anathema to conservatism. It is humanist-socialism to its core. There’s a very good reason why most of them vote democrat. The social and political views of the Vatican:
pro-union
pro-immigration
pro-welfare
pro-taxation
pro-social justice
pro-environment
anti-war
anti-capitalism
anti-death penalty
anti-”racism”
and now this. There’s little room between the Vatican and Code Pinko on the major issues.
keep the change on May 18, 2009 at 10:09 PM
FIFY
MikeA on May 18, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Nonsense, I was laughing at people who said the Pope was not a spiritual leader, etc. For 3 days, the discussion has been a hashing of “good” Catholics think this or that. Then, out comes this article in the Vatican News, and all of a sudden, even THAT isn’t really “Catholic.”
That’s zealotry.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Fuss? What do you expect when you bait people who you know are morally opposed to abortion?
So what’s the cutoff? Up to 5 months? Until they day before birth? Even after they’re born if they weren’t supposed to survive?
ProfessorMiao on May 18, 2009 at 10:10 PM
So, what does already born signify? Is being born some sort of magic thing that turns a lump of meaningless tissue into a human being? Actually, I’ve seen it done and being born is highly over rated. But what makes that the point of demarcation for you?
MikeA on May 18, 2009 at 10:13 PM
I would sincerely hope so. But sometimes I wonder…
ProfessorMiao on May 18, 2009 at 10:14 PM
I didn’t know the Human species was really two different critters. One allowed an opinion, one not.
Limerick on May 18, 2009 at 10:14 PM
I’d guess so. Tell you what, how about we give women the right to kill the kids for nine months beofre they are born, and men the right to kill them for nine months after. That’s a sort of equality, right?
MikeA on May 18, 2009 at 10:19 PM
This has got to be one of the sickest threads I’ve ever read on here…. And you know who you are. Disgusting, scientific moral equivalences. You know right from wrong.
MarkABinVA on May 18, 2009 at 10:22 PM
I just wondered if anyone actually had ever had a baby who was pontificating here.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Which has nothing to do with the baby.
Limerick on May 18, 2009 at 10:24 PM
Maybe you should use better judgment and you’d not have to worry about such penalties as a human life that is such an inconvenience to you that you have to kill it. Make sense?
MarkABinVA on May 18, 2009 at 10:26 PM
By asking that question I assume that means you have not. As a man I have to say that no, I have not. But my wife has, and I have several grandchildren that I dote on. Love them all dearly. So why did you just wonder that?
MikeA on May 18, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Oh PLEASE!
Let’s give the ‘choosen one’ the Catholic Church as well are better yet, maybe the Church should just go away.
foxone on May 18, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Hey, why not let priests and nuns marry too.
Common ground for everyone!
The Ugly American on May 18, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Nothing in the article matches this headline.
All the Vatican newspaper does is quote Obama as saying that.
logis on May 18, 2009 at 10:29 PM
anninca
so, by the logic you are pursuing, those that have never committed genocide have no right to comment because they haven’t????
Oh yeah, the insane asylum called and wanted you back….
colonelkurtz on May 18, 2009 at 10:31 PM
AnninCA wants to make the case that abortion only affects women, and therefore men cannot have an opinion on it.
If abortion were only allowed to be performed on female babies, she might have a case.
joe_doufu on May 18, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Do you mean giving birth? Is one allowed to have an opinion if one has to fed, changed diapers, stayed up all night with a baby that carries 50 percent of your DNA?
ProfessorMiao on May 18, 2009 at 10:33 PM
This makes me very, very sad. Obamas words are just words, his actions speak volumes. Mexico City Policy, Embryonic Stem Cell Research to cure Alzheimers, Voting for infanticide, support for FOCA, choosing Dr. Tiller’s (the Baby Killer) buddy to run our health care (another “good catholic”) and so on. Isn’t there some sort of funding in the stimulus bill that funded “reproductive care”?
On the other hand, for the man who wants to reduce the number of abortions what exactly has he done?? Has he written any good adoption legislation? Has he agreed to stop using federal money to fund abortions? Has he refused to take campaign money from Planned Parenthood and NARAL? Has he filmed any public ads supporting the only full proof method of birth control (wait til you’re married)? Has he purchased any ultra sound machines for abortion clinics so that an informed “choice” can be made? Will he appoint a pro life judge to the Supreme Court?. No his little speech at Notre Dame was just another appeasment to the audience more of the same appology tour. Just wait til he gets a chance to address a pro-choice group and see what he says to them (punished by the mistake of a baby).
Obama sure does know how to work a room, after all who wouldn’t cheer when he said he supports more adoptions and less “unwanted” pregnancies. Who wouldn’t cheer when he said he wanted a “reasonable” conscience law? Yet he really didn’t say what that would be.
Keep on drinking the kool aid, because he sure is pouring it and it is extra sweet.
kringeesmom on May 18, 2009 at 10:35 PM
what all conservatives and republicans always forget, whether it is Rush or anyone is that the MSM is controlled by the liberals and they bend the reporting to fit their narrative…
Never, never read something out of the media and take it at face, especially if it concerns conservative people and ideals or the republican party……………..it pleases them immensely to sow seeds of discord anyway they can…then we have the idiots like Frum who say anything to get copy and an invite to the next liberal tv show as the “guest”(read “bent-over”) republican.
colonelkurtz on May 18, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Had a baby and adopted a baby, would adopt another any time anywhere, no questions asked.
kringeesmom on May 18, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Ok, blast me. But I’m not and never have been certain why the Catholic church seems to represent everyone. Yes, they have the most money, the most press, the loudest voice. But, for us “protestants,” they do not speak for many of us, represent what we believe, and I am amazed that someone that has never been married can tell me about marriage or how to raise my children. Sorry, doesn’t work for me. I pray to the Lord directly and confess my sins to him. I don’t need a priest to intercede for me. I do not believe the Catholic church has ANY exclusive on Christianity or the way that everyday Christians think, feel or behave.
mimi1220 on May 18, 2009 at 10:40 PM
No, I am a mom.
I simply was curious. There seems to be a low-level of awareness in some of the posts about the magnitude of child-bearing on bodies. Anyone whose been through it usually just knows….this isn’t small stuff.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 10:40 PM
All opinions are welcome. I simply was curious.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Again your focus is on the woman. Always the woman. Never once, in your comments in this thread, has it been evident that there is a third person involved in these debates. This isn’t just about Mom’s physiology and Dad’s psychology.
Limerick on May 18, 2009 at 10:44 PM
I’ve never had a baby. However, I am a woman–one who miscarried many years ago at seven weeks along. I mention this not to get sympathy but to point this out: when the ultrasound was performed, the nurse/technician pointed out my baby’s heartbeat.
It’s murder.
baldilocks on May 18, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Nine months of labor and the most difficult birth carry almost no weight when compared to God’s plans for that infant. God’s will and moral behavior are no small things either.
Dubya Bee on May 18, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Low-level? Don’t know about that. Back in the days that I worked in EMS, I had a pretty good track record on emergency child birth. Never dropped a single one. And I have seen the realities of child bearing. Some women handle it better than others, and I am not ignorant of the dangers in difficult births. I am against abortion at will, and moreso against having to participate in it by taxation. But I’m not against it not where it is a medical necessity. That is not a “choice”, and that is not what Obama means when he speaks of being “punished with a baby.”
You’re a mom, so you obviously made the choice for life. I hope that is working out better for you than your insistance on retaing the right to kill the next one would seem to indicate.
MikeA on May 18, 2009 at 10:49 PM
I’m so sorry you feel that way. There are so many situations where I think abortion is the safer course. The health of the mother, for one. Incest, for another. Rape, for another.
I simply don’t view women as state vessels, required to bear children for someone else’s morality standards.
But that’s just me.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Why should an innocent baby be punished for another’s crime, Ann?
Dubya Bee on May 18, 2009 at 10:52 PM
I don’t know about the code pinko thingie, but from an ex-catholic from the Philippines, I agree on all your points and can I add:
pro-church-state
pro-liberation theology
pro-big government
pro-evolution
anti-science(remember Galileo)
anti-freedom of religion
anti-freedom of the press
Just go to Roman Catholic dominated countries and you will see what I mean. They’d vote Democrat en masse.
Of course there are some exceptions….
maynila on May 18, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Your double-standards are deafening, but that’s just me.
TMK on May 18, 2009 at 10:53 PM
I’m not asking anyone to be the “state’s vessel.” You would do well, however, to realize that you are indeed God’s vessel. You are not your own.
Dubya Bee on May 18, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Then what you are saying is that a mother is responsible for her child’s welfare after birth and not before. Her prenatal rights trump her post partum rights.
So where the hell are the unborn child’s rights? It is a child. It can be nothing else. It won’t be put in the gorilla exhibit at the zoo, or stuffed and mounted as a trophy of the woman’s ‘sporting’ expedition. That is what we pro-lifers won’t back down on. The child’s rights. You can’t grant them rights. We can’t deny them. You have made your choice. We have made ours.
Limerick on May 18, 2009 at 10:56 PM
I’m still waiting for someone to explain why it’s ok to kill kids right up to the moment of birth, just becasue someone changed their mind about the whole thing; and still worng to kill them at 16 before they start to drive and ruin your insurance policy.
MikeA on May 18, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Why are you sorry about my conclusion?
Safer for whom?
There is only one case in which that is true: ectopic pregnancy.
How will either of these affect the health of the mother?
If the state impregnated her that would be so.
“Me.” “My views.” “I’m sorry.” These phrases are the fruit of the mis-education of generations: an education bereft of its foundations. Without those foundations anything goes–including doing what’s “right” for self no matter who gets, stepped on, hurt or murdered.
baldilocks on May 18, 2009 at 10:57 PM
That’s OK. I’ve heard the same objections since I was a young woman.
Still disagree.
Until I see people acknowledging that sometimes this issue isn’t about sin or morality, but it’s about one life versus another life….which has, by definition NO morality attached to which you save….then I tend to react humanly and defensively.
I hear people throwing around terms like “murder,” and I think of the woman who will die if she goes full-term. Her family is pleading with her to terminate the pregnancy. But she is hearing those voices in her head. “It’s murder.”
I’ll always argue vociferously against that attitude.
And, btw, shame on you who use that tactic. Obama is right on that point. You either need to find a way to discuss this without gross characterizations or recognize that you’re out of bounds.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 10:59 PM
So if the baby is viable, c-section. Ectopic pregnancies are the only ones which will kill the mother (and the baby, btw).
baldilocks on May 18, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Of course if it’s a choice between two people dying or one person dying, you can sacrifice one life to save the other. What percentage of abortions do you think are done for that purpose?
Would you accept abolition of all abortions EXCEPT for that case?
joe_doufu on May 18, 2009 at 11:03 PM
The Vatican paper is not the same as the Vatican, folks. This means very little.
Crashpanic on May 18, 2009 at 11:03 PM
I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anyone say it’s wrong to kill teenagers…
Regardless, if a man can be forced under penalty of prison to sacrifice his time and income to support his offspring for 18 years (essentially slavery), and often many such children at a time, a woman carying a baby for nine lousy months under penalty of prison is hardly anything to get worked up about.
TMK on May 18, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Bounds? Now you want there to be bounds? What happened to choice? Obama said he wanted dialogue. This is dialogue.
MikeA on May 18, 2009 at 11:03 PM
Quite a few.
baldilocks on May 18, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Who are you to define the bounds of another? I thought that each of us could do what’s “right” for self. /s
baldilocks on May 18, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Ann you can gloat because the Pope agrees with you but what are you going to do when the Lord asks you about this issue on that Great Day? You going to laugh then too? Remember He is the final authority and it will be hard to justify your points in front of Him believe me!
garydt on May 18, 2009 at 11:06 PM
I am not even Cathlolic, so that does not maen a great deal to me. I do see it as a sad thing that even this fine old church seems to be being affected by the slippery boiling-frog approach of Obama.
MikeA on May 18, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Ribbit.
baldilocks on May 18, 2009 at 11:08 PM
I don’t believe abortion is being used as birth control much. I think the majority of abortions today are due to very realistic issues concerning health.
Those who think someone raped should have the baby and then give it up have no idea what that really means to the mother. That’s why the choice should be hers. Nobody can say whether the idea of abortion or the idea of a baby abandoned is worse. It must be left to the individual to decide.
But as a casual practice? I just don’t buy that’s happening much.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 11:10 PM
I’ll say it because nobody else will…
This is about a person having greater access to sexual orgasim. It doesn’t matter that they can use contraceptives or sterlization to attain more tingles and giggles, no, they want to be able to climax whenever they want with the ultimate safety net…….public pity. They don’t want anyone to pity the person created in their rug-burn-marathon. They want people to just pity the rug burned ‘victim’. “Weep for me, and pay no attention to the bloody thing in the sink.”
I’m all for a good romp. I’m all for owning up to the consequences too.
Limerick on May 18, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Here’s another question. Any of you actually ever known a child of incest?
I have.
You know what the reality is in those situations? It’s pretty darn gross.
The one I knew who was the daughter of the woman’s father was beyond the usual forms of “slow.”
You insist that the woman should not have abortion available? She MUST deliver her father’s child.
She was 13, btw.
Just a reality check here.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Who gives a crap what it really means to the mother?
joe_doufu on May 18, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Name a health risk that can only be solved by abortion besides ectopic pregnancy which must be terminated early in the first trimester to save the life of the mother.
You haven’t the foggiest clue about what I know and don’t know about that topic. Just saying.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 11:10 PM
baldilocks on May 18, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Slow is better than dead, don’t you agree?
joe_doufu on May 18, 2009 at 11:16 PM
I certainly don’t. I care as much as I care why a car-jacker jacked a car or why a counterfeiter printed a cache of fake twenties.
TMK on May 18, 2009 at 11:20 PM
That’s how it has been framed over the decades. The moral foundation’s destruction and the subsequent indoctrination is so deep that the pro-abortion types are incapable of thinking of it any other way.
Get this: when I told another pro-abortion type about my seeing my child’s heartbeat at that early stage, he stated that I must have imagined it (!) until I mentioned the technician who point it out. Then he pretended as if I never mentioned it.
baldilocks on May 18, 2009 at 11:21 PM
The reality here seems to be that you believe you have the right to judge the worth of that child, and it being found wanting (by you) that it may be killed.
God can turn the most adverse situation we can imagine to His own good purposes. You set yourself up as judge, jury and executioner.
Dubya Bee on May 18, 2009 at 11:24 PM
Ann you didn’t answer my question about are you willing to offend our Creator when you have such opinions. You laughed off what the Pope said and you don’t seem to worry about your future.
garydt on May 18, 2009 at 11:24 PM
If you think this article says that the Pope is pro-abortion or supports Obama on life issues you are high. It simply credited him with not being quite as crazy far to the right on these issues as was feared. The Vatican press takes the Prez’s comments about being open to dialogue at face value… not really seeing the news here.
Oh, and I am a real life woman BTW and I am Catholic and pro-life.
darcee on May 18, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Yes, I confess. My sympathies lay with the 13-year-old raped by her father.
So shoot me. :)
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 11:46 PM
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
Reality check for AnninCA: less than .5 percent of woman report rape as factor in their abortion.
darcee on May 18, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Sorry that should have said incest, rape is less than 1 percent.
darcee on May 18, 2009 at 11:50 PM
I bet that could be the difference in perspectives. I simply can’t think in terms of statistics on this issue.
I knew that 13-year-old. I can tell you her story.
It’s pretty brutal, though.
AnninCA on May 18, 2009 at 11:58 PM
And how does compounding one evil with another remove the pain from this girl? You think that if the baby is aborted that the pain will go away? Huh. I submit that it’s you who doesn’t know how things work.
baldilocks on May 18, 2009 at 11:58 PM
And what better way to care for her happiness and well-being than to stick a fork in her baby and suction its brains out?
joe_doufu on May 18, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Had an abduction/rape at knifepoint when my daughter was a college freshman coming back to the dorm from the library. A routine part of the post-rape therapy for the victim is allowing them the choice of a morning after tablet in the ER. There are no regrets and it would be handled exactly the same way again. So, to answer your question, people who love them care.
a capella on May 19, 2009 at 12:03 AM
<blockquoAnd what better way to care for her happiness and well-being than to stick a fork in her baby and suction its brains out?
Thankfully, I cannot imagine thinking the way you do.
AnninCA on May 19, 2009 at 12:05 AM
AnninCA on May 19, 2009 at 12:07 AM
None from anyone who can talk, that is.
Because if there was a baby, it is dead.
If you love your daughter, next time buy her a gun.
joe_doufu on May 19, 2009 at 12:07 AM
That’s the problem. Try an easier task: can you imagine thinking as the child victim of an abortion thinks?
joe_doufu on May 19, 2009 at 12:09 AM
And the good citizens of Dachau ignored the ashes falling from the sky. Day and night.
Limerick on May 19, 2009 at 12:10 AM
I simply am grateful I don’t think that her choices are between bearing her father’s child and your version.
I know that I simply could not even begin to think that way.
AnninCA on May 19, 2009 at 12:13 AM
To compare a 13-year old girl who is the victim of incest to Nazis is simply awful. I, repeat, thankfully, I cannot even begin to relate to your mind.
AnninCA on May 19, 2009 at 12:16 AM
All right, there may be some versions of abortion that are less gruesome and easier to pretend you didn’t notice. But really, what other option do you see besides:
a) giving birth
b) killing the baby
joe_doufu on May 19, 2009 at 12:17 AM
I didn’t compare your 13yo with a Nazi. I compared you to a good citizen of Dachau.
Limerick on May 19, 2009 at 12:18 AM
So, you are opposed to immediate post rape therapy preventing pregnancy? You apparently don’t care what trauma the victim goes through carrying a forced pregnancy, plus the pain of giving up a child at the end, or trying to raise it herself while hating the father? Should she quit college to accomplish this? How does she earn a living? And she should go through this just because you think she should?
a capella on May 19, 2009 at 12:20 AM
Oh no, you most certainly did. If that 13-year-old opted for abortion, she’s your “nazi.”
I’d back off from that, too, if I were you.
Disgusting analogy.
Here are your choices, chump.
Have your Dad’s baby or be a Nazi.
Yuck.
And Yuck to any political position forcing this on anyone.
AnninCA on May 19, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Chump I am then. A chump who will never kill an unborn child. A chump who will not pretend the ashes aren’t falling from the sky. A chump who doesn’t fall for your analogy of the 13 yo incest victim who’s case weighs as much as the millions upon millions of human children butchered because it was too hard to raise them. Cry this chump a river and you’ll find him in a canoe.
Limerick on May 19, 2009 at 12:27 AM
We then never will share perspectives.
That’s OK by me.
AnninCA on May 19, 2009 at 12:30 AM
I am not insensitive to the “trauma” of the “victim”. What you are talking about is murdering a child for the flimsy justification that it will ease the psychological suffering of the mother. (As if!) You don’t have to be a philosopher to understand, with clarity, that the murder of the child is a greater evil than the hurt feelings of the mother. The trauma of a rape will heal. Being dead does not.
As for the day-after pill, I don’t have a position because I don’t know the details of the science. If it is taken before fertilization (which requires several hours, if I remember correctly?) then it doesn’t seem to be homicidal.
joe_doufu on May 19, 2009 at 12:31 AM
Imagination deficiency. That says it all.
baldilocks on May 19, 2009 at 12:31 AM
It prevents actual fertilization, but that was also blocked by pro-life groups.
AnninCA on May 19, 2009 at 12:37 AM
AnninCA is full of disinformation. The majority of abortions are NOT due to realistic health issues. LIAR.
Abortion is birth control. It is one of the methods suggested by Planned Parenthood. An abortion is a 100% effective birth control method. An abortion has no impact on the transmission of STDs so how could an abortion be ANYTHING other than a birth control method?
Geochelone on May 19, 2009 at 12:37 AM
Wrong. It was opposed by pro-life groups because of the access by minors without parental notification.
Limerick on May 19, 2009 at 12:41 AM
See, I have a little problem with this. I think it says more than you intended to say about women.
a capella on May 19, 2009 at 12:54 AM
I’m not going to sit on my high horse and say that all scenarios are the same. There are plenty of cicumstances that fall in a grey area (for me). However, there is one core point that I cannot abandon and that state sanctioned abortion on demand is wrong. Not just wrong, evil.
Next up…Limerick is a religious zealot even though Limerick is a Big-Banger-Darwin-and-God-were-smart-fellas type.
Limerick on May 19, 2009 at 1:01 AM
Last thing, then this old man is off to bed.
Planned Parenthood has a ‘clinic’ just 3/4 of a mile from my house. I walk past it every single day. It is a sad, but necessary, part of my daily exercise. The staff wears black.
That is right, black. Black smocks, black pants. It chills me to the bone to see them come and go. I hope one day the lot will just be a field again, and the black smocks will be but an old man’s memory.
Limerick on May 19, 2009 at 1:20 AM
if child bearing is so rough, than don’t have kids and don’t kill them either. Simple as that, and you know what’s a real good way to do that? Not have sex as you please. (Says the 19 year old boy)
angelwing34215 on May 19, 2009 at 1:21 AM
This is off topic but I saw someone say the Church was anti-science citing Galileo. Recently I’ve been doing research and Dinesh D’Sousa had said the Catholic Church actually funded Galileo’s research and also pointed out that Copernicus had the same theory out when Galileo was a small child and he faced none of the supposed persecution that Galileo sustained, can anyone point me in the right direction in regards to these claims?
angelwing34215 on May 19, 2009 at 1:27 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »