He Came, He Spoke, He Conquered

And while the Vatican seeks proprietary rights over the wombs of women all over the world, a bit of irony, I offer.

This is pasted from Stevens-Arroyo's thread:

"NYT Today: A fiercely debated, long-delayed investigation into Ireland's Roman Catholic-run institutions says priests and nuns terrorized thousands of boys and girls in workhouse-style schools for decades -- and government inspectors failed to stop the chronic beatings, rapes and humiliation.

Nine years in the making, Wednesday's 2,600-page report sides almost completely with the horrific reports of abuse from former students sent to more than 250 church-run, mostly residential institutions.

It concluded that church officials always shielded their orders' pedophiles from arrest to protect their own reputations and, according to documents uncovered in the Vatican, knew that many pedophiles were serial attackers.

The commission said overwhelming, consistent testimony from still-traumatized men and women, now in their 50s to 80s, had demonstrated beyond a doubt that the entire system treated children more like prison inmates and slaves than people with legal rights and human potential..."
.
Posted by: Frank57 | May 20, 2009 1:44 PM

CCNL writes to Coloradodog:

"BTW, being "Crossanized" Christian/Catholics, we are not allowed in the Vatican."

He would be allowed in the Vatican. Not only would his Crossanization not be at issue, his unicellular brain-celled nature would not come into question.

One-celled creatures may enter the Vatican, although, admittedly, CCNL's protoplasm is unique.

Coloradodog,

You forgot to thank us for pointing out how medications are dispensed.

BTW, being "Crossanized" Christian/Catholics, we are not allowed in the Vatican.

And what "theocratic" agenda are you texting/testy about????

oops, first person plural. Jesus, please forgive me for my grammatical sins.
mea culpa
mea culpa
mea culpa

His Eminence, CCNL wrote in the royal/papal second person plural:

"And since you did not mention the other suggestions to reduce abortions, we assume you approve of them." |

Like your judgmental, Obama bashing assumption that he advocates abortion, your assumption about me is equally wrong, your Excellency.

My suggestion to reduce abortions is contraception, but it's sinful to waste the Holy sperm, isn't it? (except for in Irish Reform Schools and from Mahoney's, Rivera's and Law's pedophile priests).

I suppose you want me to kiss your ring now, right? The only interest I have in your ancient superstitions is preventing your theocratic agenda to control the rest of us with them.

No one is telling anyone whether or not to own a slave.

If Southern white men, of their own free will, choose to own slaves, so be it.

If Southern white men, of their own free will, wish to rape or kill their slaves, so be it.

If Southern white men, of their own free will, wish to manumit their slaves, so be it.

If Southern white men, of their own free will, wish to impregnate their female slaves, so be it.

So long as these Southern white men can afford to feed and clothe their slaves, or arrange for others to do so, so be it.

As for the rest of us, message to the Northern Abolitionists:

Get your hands away from my plantation and cotton patch.

Get your face out of our legislature.

I wrote about the issue over the Obama-Notre Dame Controversy on my blog. The problem with this issue is not about the beliefs on abortion but that nobody had the proper grounds to bring up Obama's beliefs to shame Notre Dame for their decision to invite President Obama to deliver this year's commencement address. It doesn't matter what your political beliefs are, this is a matter of separation of church and state, which the media chose to ignore.

So check out my blog. http://ianisthemedia.blogspot.com/2009/05/if-we-didnt-start-fire-then-who-did.html

Once again, anyone interested in CCNL's theological and moral thinking would do well to consult:

C.Christian Nut-Louse. "The New in the New Testament. Antarctica: Antarctic UP, 1957.

Available in Deep Drifts Antarctica. Starting at 1.29. (Ending at 1.34)

Includes information on rites, rituals, why African American Presidents should not speak at Notre Dame, why elderly men should have proprietary rights to women's wombs, etc., based upon the C.Christian Nut-Lousian reading.

Coloradodog,

Where do we get pills/medications now? Parents/doctors if you are not of age. Doctors if are of age. OTC if you are of age.

Examples: Anti-biotics available from any doctor/pharmacy at any age. Ditto for pain , hypertension, cholesterol lowering etc. medications

Erectile Dysfunction drugs- from your doctor. RU-486 available on-line without prescription. Morning-after pills- available OTC if you are 18 or over.

Last time I checked, no one is forcing anyone to take these pills. And there a lot of parents and young adults who would really like to have available a pill that temporarily eliminates the sex drive. Even my wife would suggest I get a prescription and I am 68 years old :))

And since you did not mention the other suggestions to reduce abortions, we assume you approve of them.

Once again:

And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills and chastity belts are no protection against STDs.

Might a list of those having an STD posted on the Internet help? Sounds good to me!!!! Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???

And the adoption option must be constantly noted in the press and media. BO and his wife could make a giant step in this regard by adopting. Sad that they saw fit to adopt a dumb dog instead.

RE: "Yeah, 35 million babies, nice number. How many of those occurred in the first trimester, the one where no major organs are developed?"

"Brain function, as measured on the Electroencephalogram, "appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation," or six weeks after conception"

J. Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain,"
New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564
|

Let's see now: a trimester is three months. The "fetus" exhibits brainwaves at the end of six weeks. It is not surprising that you do not recognize the brain to be a major organ.

Abortion,

When I want to get rid of certain tree in my farm I dig till I remove its roots. Why should some of us crack their brain trying to figure out this reality ?

Education; Awareness. These I think, are some of the tools we can use to sensibilize our children so to avoid unwanted pregnancies consequently abortions and STD's. Positive achievement won't be reached in our days but let us plant for those who are still to come.

As noted many times:

How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills and chastity belts are no protection against STDs.

Might a list of those having an STD posted on the Internet help? Sounds good to me!!!! Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???

And the adoption option must be constantly noted in the press and media. BO and his wife could make a giant step in this regard by adopting. Sad that they saw fit to adopt a dumb dog instead.

Goofy:

You made about 8 charges against Obama in one sentence: Cite your sources, please. I am still waiting.

Pr Chris

PS: Yes, I've listened to Rush's show; every once in awhile (as frequently as I can stomach) "know thy enemy" is still a good practice.

I am not Catholic but like them, I am perfectly able to make moral decisions for my self based on my beliefs.

In spite of the imperfections in institutions and individuals, I do not want to judge the beliefs of Catholics nor of the woman who wants the right of choice. In each case the matter is between them and their God.

I do not believe in coercion to compel behavior or belief in highly controversial issues that are not viewed the same way by other equally moral people and religions.

As Obama said, lets work on the things we can agree on and lower the number of abortions and let me add, take care of the children that are born.

The histrionics of those who know how all of us should believe and act sadden me. Are you sure you do not have a few things to improve in your own lives?

MaxTel:

Is throwing out a fertilized egg from a fertility clinic morally better than perhaps developing beneficial medical advances from a cell that will never become a person? Why? Why not?

Pr Chris

CCNL:

You have posted on every thread in any way [possibly] connected to abortion your assertion concerning the facts of the number of abortions that have occurred in the US. SO: HOW WILL YOU REDUCE THE NUMBER?????

1. Comprehensive sex ed?
2. Widely available contraceptions?
3. Encouraging adoption (how?)
4. ?????

Instead of just repeating your shout...how about contributing to the discussion.

Pr Chris

The facts:

Thirty-five million babies have been aborted since 1973.

"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

Some added observations:

Nature or Nature's God is the #1 taker of everyone's life. That gives some rational for killing the unborn or those suffering from dementia, mental disease or Alzheimer's or anyone who might inconvenience your life???

We constantly battle the forces of nature. We do not succumb to these forces by eliminating defenseless children!!!!!

JWhite2:

"And it isn't killing to throw a baby into a closet and wait for it to die because the mother decided she doesn't want it?"

You are lumping together everything from ferris wheels to polar bears to bath towels. Killing an infant is murder. Abortion, however, is not killing an infant.

As for the rest of the comments in your first paragraph, see these links, the first on the fallacy of misleading vividness, the second on Partial Birth Abortions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_vividness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

I am delighted that you are enjoying your niece. I adore mine, almost as much as I do my own daughter. I do not believe, that either the RCC or any other third party, has proprietary rights over their wombs.

Farnaz

FARNAZ1MANSOURI1

So it isn't killing to stick scissors into a live baby's skull and suck out their brains while they're half in and half out of the womb? And it isn't killing to throw a baby into a closet and wait for it to die because the mother decided she doesn't want it?

I have to take a stand against something that I think is extremely wrong. My sister just had a baby last month and I look that innocent soul, who is learning and looking at the world around her and I cannot begin to imagine anyone doing to her what the so called partial birth doctors do to similar babies. I think they have lost their souls.

JWhite2:

"wonder if you'd advocate for a happy medium for killing"

The only killers in this controversy have been among the anti-choicers, who cheerfully blew up clinics, killed physicians, in this, the United States of America.

member5:

NB: You are free to hold your anti-choice position. Be aware, however, that yours is a faction noted for screaming, violence, and abuse.

Name-calling other bloggers will not strengthen your position, such as it is.

@ lioness

"It would be great if we could reach a happy medium on all this because at the end of the day- "we're all wrong" "

With that logic I wonder if you'd advocate for a happy medium for killing say....anyone over the age of 80 - after all, they're a burden on their children and it's a personal decision for the ones who are inconvenienced by their elder's existence. Wouldn't this be a "personal decision" between the caregiver and God? So, maybe we should only kill the ones who have reached the age of 90. Is that a happy medium? You could just make a law that states that if you can't care for your parent that you can abort them. That way you can have more free time to enjoy yourself rather than be burdened by responsibility for a life other than your own.

After all, in the end it's all about you.

Sorry, but for me there is no happy medium on this issue. To me it's murder and should only be done if the health of the mother is at risk. More of us taking responsibility for our actions would be a good thing but unfortunately personal responsibility is no longer encouraged - someone else is at fault and someone else can pay for it - even if it is an innocent baby.

lioness_ohyes:

Excellent points, all the way down the line. If you have not listened to Obama's speech, you might want to do so. Every point he made about the anti-choice controversy is well taken.

He is not so naive to think that we will ever agree. However, he does make the point that support should be given to those women, without means, who choose to carry to term, something the loud-mouth anti-choicers have never offered to do.
____________________
As for the Catholic anti-choicers, and not all Catholics are anti-choice, I hold the same views I always have.

No one is telling anyone whether or not to have an abotion.

If Catholic women, of their own free will, choose to carry to term, regardless of whether they have been incested, so be it.

If Catholic women, of their own free wil, wish to carry to term the product of rape, so be it.

If Catholic women, of their own free will, wish to sacrifice their own lives, giving birth, so be it.

If Catholic women, of their own free will, wish to give birth to a vegetable, so be it.

So long as these Catholic women can afford to raise their offspring decently or arrange for others to do so, so be it.
________________________
As for the rest of us, message to the RCC:
Get your hands away from my womb and genitals.

Get your face out of our legislature.

@ CaptSugarMeTimbers, I do support doing everything short of abortion to stop unwanted pregnancies, and I would support using my tax dollars to subsidize contraceptives/ education if that's what it takes. I'm not a Catholic, though, so I don't grapple with preventative birth control as a moral issue.

@ Lioness, you sound too hysterical to form a logical argument. You're entitled to your opinion, but it makes no sense. You keep referring to "YOUR BODY AND YOUR BABY." I'm glad we agree that your unborn child is a person. Last time I checked, people could not legally treated as property in the U.S. anymore. Yet somehow we have made this unreasonable exception that if the baby is unborn, the mother can do whatever she wants with it. I think that's inconsistent and wrong.

"My apologies, Paganplace. It's just that I am so intolerant of the intolerant.

Posted by: coloradodog"

Gotta be careful, there, Colorado: the intolerant are surprisingly *sensitive* about not tolerating intolerance. :)

My apologies, Paganplace. It's just that I am so intolerant of the intolerant.

"He reversed the prior ExOs on embryonic stem cell research,"

Which only prevented use of some of theblastulae about-to-be-thrown-out-as-medical-waste-from fertility clinics from being used for *pure research.*

I didn't see a *breath* of indignance from 'pro-lifers' about how Bush's executive orders *protected* the right of private corporations to use the same material to make the next hair loss treatment or whatever profitable venture they liked.

Bush's orders only hobbled *science,* ...not corporate R&D.

Moral absolutist.

"is getting rid of the health care workers conscience clause"

Which is institutionalized discrimination allowing religiously-based semi-trained individuals to override patients' rights to informed consent if Wal-mart gives them a *name tag...?* Which allowed religious institutions to use queer people's tax dollars to not provide the only medical services in the area?

You bet he got rid of them, they weren't even in full effect cause they were so blatantly illegal.

" and has quietly let the scholarship program for inner city students going to private (mostly Catholic) schools die."

Ah, ie letting the religious institutions take our money to gut the public schools and not provide special ed and the like, then use our tax dollars to teach all the kids how government is no use, unless it's bankrolling religious indoctrination and not-teaching science. Yah.

" And he's just gotten started. Either abortion is the moral equivalent of the Holocaust or it isn't."

Gonna have to go with 'not,' then.

Gee Fr. Reese from what you've written, one would think abortion had all the moral gravitas of tax evasion or shop lifting. Mr. Obama is not just for abortion. He reversed the prior ExOs on embryonic stem cell research, is getting rid of the health care workers conscience clause and has quietly let the scholarship program for inner city students going to private (mostly Catholic) schools die. And he's just gotten started. Either abortion is the moral equivalent of the Holocaust or it isn't. What's the count since Roe v. Wade 50 million? What don't you get about him being the most anti-Catholic president in history?

Your article is not surprising. Few Catholics I know, including priests, consider the Jesuits to be part of the Roman Catholic Church. They really are Episcopalians. God Save the Queen, Father.

That's not really helpful, Colorado, as much as a lot of Bishops and a sitting Pope got a *lot* of nerve being hyperbolic about the policies of a free nation.

Since the Catholic fanatics like to get graphic here, where were the pictures on the mortars of the children whose rectums have been torn and bloodied by the "celibate" penises of pedophile priests?

Next time Obama will know better than to be set up by institutions whose religious sponsor has been hijacked by right-wing Rovian thugs who want to use the invitation to set him up for a public lynching.

Shame on Notre Dame for being duped into this by their O'Reilly Catholics and their pedophile-hiding Bishops in their long dresses with pointy hats and tassels.

@Paganplace- I've read some of your stuff before. Good discussion, comments and opinions from you as always.

It would be great if we could reach a happy medium on all this because at the end of the day- "we're all wrong" somewhere on some issue to somebody. Life is so fragile, while one is beaming with joy another is mourning a loss- yet we for on and on about things that don't really matter. Personal choice should be that.
Having gone through the procedure, all I can really say is that it's a hard, intimate personal choice. When you make the choice, you must weigh all options and do what YOU THINK is best for you and your life. It's not something to be tossed back and forth like a volley ball or between right and wrong. It's all relative and you have to live with it. I see a lot of difference between aborting a fetus one knows she's not ready for or able to provide for and bombing and killing nurses and doctors who provide this service. Me aborting is between me and God - someone committing murder in retaliation is between someone and the law...I've seen many try to bring God into the courtroom and I watched God usher them to the holding cell after sentencing while they asked "why have you forsaken me?" I don't suppose one would feel that way if killing in the name of God were truly God's work.

My Goddess, CCNL.

Just in case we all turn straight and become Octomoms, well:

"Once again, Obama rode to the Blood-Red House on the backs of 35+million aborted womb-babies!!!"

Apart from the little detail he's only been elected once, I don't think the way to be good to 'babies' has anything to do with living in anything remotely *resembling* your private world.

>>>>>>> "Actions speak louder than words. Obama is a smooth-talking baby butcher........ It is time for those who oppose the butchery of innocent unborn babies to join with other Free Americans and separate from the tyranny of liberal fascism, just as Lot took his family away from Sodom and Gomorrah."

I don't recall anyone calling George W.Bush a murderer in connection with the hundreds of millions of dollars that his administration provided to Planned Parenthood, through Medicaid and Title X.

I wonder why that was. Perhaps opposition to "liberal fascism" is more important than opposition to "conservative fascism".

Rallies the base, doesn't it? Helps the free-marketeers who want to strip funding from health clinics, and Medicaid, and nursery schools.

There's nothing inherently wrong with believing that human life begins at conception, although this belief seems rarely to be defended in detail. However, the political implications of having huge numbers of additional mothers and babies in poverty should be laid out frankly.

Once again, Obama rode to the Blood-Red House on the backs of 35+million aborted womb-babies!!!

(The fastest growing USA voting bloc: The 70+ million "Roe vs. Wade mothers and fathers" of aborted babies" whose ranks grow by ~two million per year.)

i.e. the Immoral Majority now rules the land and will do so in the foreseeable future. How very sad and disturbing!!!

Other observations:

With respect to destroying sperm (or eggs) as being akin to abortion, give us a break!!!

Human male sperm is analogous to the millions of tons of inactive deuterium floating harmlessly in the ocean but combine it in a fusion reaction, it becomes the energy of the Sun.

With respect to god (if this singularity even exists) being the world's largest abortionist, the wise words of Father Edward Schillebeeckx captures the reality of it all:

from his book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman
doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" .

"Nothing is determined in advance: in nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.

Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

@CaptSugarMeTimbers!

OF COURSE that's better, but that means they will have to admit they have sex for pleasure...AND YOU KNOW PLEASURABLE SEX IS OFF LIMITS. That notion will make the children think they're supposed to enjoy it
They only marry and couple to make children...THAT IS until they finally finish with their careers and have waited until they are 50 to decide to have a baby...NO wait...they have to go through IVF (but won't adopt an orphaned or unwanted child) because the Lord saw fit to "bless them" with menopause in their late 40s.
Never hear a peep from PRO-LIFERS about the 61, 66 and 70 year old women getting artificially inseminated. The U.S. has an age cap on the procedure. It surprises me they aren't up in arms about that or 13 year old girls being too young to consent but old enough to have a baby.
If you can't you can't and when you're done you're done. THAT AIN'T THE LORD'S WORK and it's not natural conception.

BChan, my God condemns to Hell those who pretend to be reasonable when they say they know something about Him. My God told me to tell you you are going to Hell and He only tells me the Supreme Truth so that's it. Your opinion is invalid to my God, and to me by extension.
Your belief in your God is erroneous in that my God doesn't want your fake belief and is only interested in you going to Hell.
You are required by my God to accept my reasonable opinion. Thank the Real God, my God, that your God doesn't exist. Enjoy your eternity in Hell. While you are still here, pray that my people never outnumber yours. That is all.

To: hanocul6 | May 18, 2009 2:09 PM

Are you saying you believe commencement speakers should only be invited when their principles and beliefs are the same as that of the institution?
Did Kofi Annan have the same principles and beliefs as the institution of ND? Alan C. Page? Vartan Gregorian? Jeffery Immelt?

Commencement is not meant to honor the speaker, it's meant to honor the graduates. The commencement speaker is merely there to give inspiration, advice, information, real world experience, etc. etc. and students can either listen or just put their ipod earbuds back in. If an institution isn't willing to look beyond their inner circle of people who will spew the same rhetoric the institution is used to, they're just shafting their students and denying them the opportunity to hear what people beyond that circle have (or don't have) to offer.

How about we all try to broaden our thinking and not take one statement or one position or one belief and use it to define an entire person? People are complex and multi-faceted--it's what makes us different yet so much alike.

MEMBERS...
The more I read what you wrote the more I believe there is a book that needs to be burned. AGAIN- this is WHY WE HAVE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
There are morals and values and there are laws. Seems you have them all lumped together and it's running out of you like Montezuma's revenge.
Please stop shooting those ridiculous statements out of your bum . Where will you rest your head with all that detritus backed up in there?

W-

I take issue with your first point, you said:

"Pro-choice argument- The way to cut down on abortions is to increase access to birth control. BOGUS. If the U.S. provided unlimited free access to contraceptives for everyone, would you then be willing to ban abortion? I don't think so."

You're missing the point. By addressing the issue of unwanted pregnancies, we eliminate the need for more abortions and the whole arguement becomes mute. I agree it's unlikely to stop 100% of abortions but wouldn't reducing the number of abortions by 50% or even 75% be better than what we have today? Isn't that worth undertaking?

And let's say that twice as many kids start having sex as a result of increased use of contraception, doesn't a 50% reduction in teen pregnancies far outwiegh the "moral denegration" of a few more kids making whoopie? C'mon, this is simple! Why can't we all agree on this...!?

Oh, but for the columnist:

"Sounding more like a preacher than a politician, he asked that we extend the "presumption of good faith" to those who disagree with us."

Actually, 'good faith' in that sense doesn't mean 'proper religious obedience,' it means... sincerity.

I mean, you know, for all the wonder and stuff-to-do in this world, it seems all achievement is *hobbled* by people who have made even *God* into merely an omnipotent sexual hangup.

Sexuality is a very important set of instincts to our species, ...this is something that marketing and religion have perhaps unwittingly come together on playing 'good-cop-bad-cop about for so long that they think that's actually the world.

If you have a healthy and contented sex-life, no one can sell you a God or a product or a frenzied ideology to try and substitute for it, and I think *that's* why the strange alliance of unrestrained capitalism and unchecked religious authority had managed to get so far in messing us all up.

People really seem to have the idea that sex is an eternal struggle between the kind of 'naughty, dirty, tempting' commercialized displays and the condemning of that *as if* it were what sex actually *is.*

But that's not *sex,* it's marketing.

SORRY "MEMBERS" you twisted this like the true hypocrite does.
Pro-choice argument- Men have no right to judge what a woman does unless they walk a mile in her shoes. BOGUS. By that argument, no female judge should be able to pass sentence on a man in a court of law either.

What does this have to do with anything?
I say no man CAN MAKE THE FINAL DECISION ON ME "HAVING A BABY".
WHEN A MAN COULD "HAVE A BABY"...HE WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE if he had the baby or not because it's his body and his baby. BUT A MAN CAN'T HAVE A BABY= *MOOT*

Now, "Judge" does not have male or female designation. Either sex can do the job-

In your hypothetical the job is to pass judgment not have babies. You make no sense with the comparisons.
I have 2 kids in college...I'm not protesting the tuition- it's my responsibility.
Please resolve to MIND YOUR BUSINESS unless it is YOUR BODY AND YOUR BABY. Then do whatever the hell you want -that's your responsibility.

Fr. Reese, you are an impressive thinker. Have been reading more of your work--an impressive thinker, a courageous and just man. At least, so it appears, thus far....

"We've entrusted our children to the SEX FILLED world- then tell them it's wrong to so what they see 24/7/365."

True enough, ....though the perception of a 'sex filled world' really comes from advertisements and the media: in fact it's a nation largely full of *really big holes where healthy sexuality ought to be.* Certain religion and other pressures in fact *fill people with fear and inhibition and unrealistic standards* ...then the media go ahead and try to sell, and people do buy... anything that can be dangled to try and fill that hole.

It's almost like the culture is 'sexualistic' but, it seems actual *sex* is sort of scary and inhibited and very-marketably unsatisfying.

No wonder there's hysteria about it, but right-wing political madness won't fill the 'hole,' either.

"I think we can all agree that adoption is preferrable to abortion. I would hope that you could agree that preventing unwanted pregnancies is also a worthy goal."

I agree totally. EDUCATION IS KEY so I can't understand WHY the Catholic Church in particular seems to view education of real world issues and sex as a sin. Sex is natural-we are going to do it so we need to make sure prevention and protection are taught to everyone. It's not just about birth control, it's also about SEXUAL HEALTH- physical, mental, and emotional.
Why do we force kids to be mature so fast, take on so much then try to stifle their hormones? We've entrusted our children to the SEX FILLED world- then tell them it's wrong to so what they see 24/7/365. When we spare the rod, give them the freedom to make their own decisions, allow them to disrespect their parents, elders and authority, tell them they aren't old enough to consent to sex at 14 but can't stop them from having a baby? Sending mixed signals isn't helping

Orange growers learn to protect the groves and orchards because...
1-the elements are changing and can be dangerous
2 exposure to elements will cause diseases and mutations
3- parasite infestation can ruin a whole crop and produce mediocre produce.

In Catholicism I thought women were highly regarded and considered "the bearers of "the fruit"-if these fruits are our children, they aren't being protected by or from the real dangers they face.
Apply the theory to young people today and it's no wonder we have such an unruly generation of children in this debauched holier-than-thou society.
EDUCATION...it's the TRUE STIMULUS!

Dear pro-choice commentors, I don't even have to turn to religious sources to debunk all of your arguments. They fail the most basic test of logic. Here goes.

Pro-choice argument- The way to cut down on abortions is to increase access to birth control. BOGUS. If the U.S. provided unlimited free access to contraceptives for everyone, would you then be willing to ban abortion? I don't think so.

Pro-choice argument- It's a woman's body, she can do what she wants. BOGUS. Do you support the repeal of all laws punishing drug use by women? No. Obviously our laws don't say that anything goes with respect to people's own bodies.

Pro-choice argument- Men have no right to judge what a woman does unless they walk a mile in her shoes. BOGUS. By that argument, no female judge should be able to pass sentence on a man in a court of law either.

Pro-choice argument- Abortion is a women's rights issue. BOGUS. What about the rights of the 50% of unborn babies that die as a result of abortion.

Pro-choice argument- Abortion saves some children from a life of child-abuse or debilitating health problems. BOGUS. Killing someone in order to protect them from difficult circumstances doesn't sound like much of a favor to me.

Pro-choice argument- Pro-lifers are hypocrites because they support capital punishment, didn't protest the war in Iraq or abuse by priests, don't support gun control, etc. That may be true, but it's irrelevant to the abortion issue.

I'm not even going to address the asinine argument that abortion is the solution to overpopulation.

I can only think of one argument that could justify abortion, and that is if a woman would suffer a dire risk to her own life by carrying a child. When there's a direct conflict between the two lives, the life of the adult person must trump the unborn. That's it. If anyone wants to make any other arguments, try thinking them through first instead of just regurgitating Planned Parenthood's talking points.

W

The same people who are vehemently against causing temporary discomfort to mass murderers in order to save thousands of lives inexplicably are for sticking scissors into a helpless infant's skull and sucking the baby's brains out.

Hitler wasn't an anomaly. Many morally confused people still accept mass murder if they convince themselves that the victims aren't important and it somehow makes their own life more "convenient". How some people look in the mirror is shocking - no conscience apparently.

Oh my! Dotty Dear, I've been a nurse for 30 years and I just wanted to reassure you how the medical industry works. We get to choose where we work, nurses and MD's as well. No law can force us to take a job, let alone doing something unethical. And for situations that do arise where we have a concern; we have something called an Ethics Committee. It's comprised of all sorts of people including Theologians.

As far as us leaving the country in droves? That will only happen if we are not able to come up with one party coverage for EVERYONE-like Norway for example. Because if you think the system we have works, come spend a night at work in the emergency room with me. Dotty, I've spent a fair amount of time in Norway and their citizens have terrific health care. But if you truly don't believe in Government run health care, don't sign up for Medicare or cancel it if you are over 65.

Regarding the car industry. GM pays more for health insurance than it does advertising. In 2005 they paid $5.6 Billion in health care costs- It increased the price of each car as much as $1500.00. The auto industry pays more for health care per year than it does for steel. Any business that spends more on health care than raw materials seems doomed to me. Obama didn't "rip apart the car industry". It's been in trouble for a long time.

It's clear from your post that you didn't vote for our current President. That's OK. My 78 year old Republican mother did.
But if you are going make statements regarding medical personal leaving the country, and Obama being responsible for the auto industry meltdown, back it up, otherwise you just sound like a fanatic, and I'm sure that's not what you wanted.

@jahwalks AMEN!
I SO fear and pity those who have been misguided by doctrines and beliefs of some organized religions- it's meant to instill fear and conformity for the purpose of CONTROL and the higher power I subscribe to doesn't condone deception.

It is truly amazing to think how much we could accomplish if we shed our trivial issues and stand behind this man... you are 100% correct in your likening Obama to those great, wise leaders and teachers who, like Obama, have been judged, mocked and betrayed and even killed for their principals of peace, love, respect, fairness and HONOR. I do pray for this man and our nation and for those who are not able to open their hearts and minds to the premise of doing things for the GREATER GOOD of all. Those of us who live by those basic laws of life and nature know the truth and see how those who profess the truth "in word but not in deed" are now struggling to maintain their positions and ideals.

If they were correct in their intentions there would be no struggle. The more they try to deny the easier it becomes for the light of truth to shine. He lets then have their say; he doesn't even say they are wrong...but quantifies the many ways that OLD IDEAS and OLD WAYS don't fit our NEW SOCIETY. If nothing changes, nothing changes.
America is a great nation of many cultures, from all corners of the Earth. If we can start to focus on UNITY and PROGRESS instead of reinforcing the things that tear us apart, this could actually be a great WORLD.

To personabuena | May 18, 2009 1:57 PM.

It is one thing to invite someone into a setting that is staged to entertain different views so one can learn and grow. It is a completely different setting to call someone into a place of honor to be honored as to acknowledge that their principals and beliefs are the same as the that of the institution.

Fr. Reese was removed by the Church as the editor of "America" magazine because of his public support of the ordination of women and lefting of the dicipline of priestly celebacy.

Fr. Reese's only value to the media is that he wears a collar and can be depended upon to parrot the "party line".

But what can we expect from the WaPo. I mean this is the paper that hired a guy to cover baseball who says he hates sports.

Priceless!

I was born in 1960 and baptized in Montreal, Quebec to Roman Catholic parents. While I was being dipped into the Holy Bird Bath, Native children across Canada were still being subjected to the horrifying tortures and forced sterilization programs in residential schools, 60% of which were run by the Catholic Church. Project Paperclip - a CIA program begun in 1946 utilizing ex-Nazi researchers in medical, biological warfare and mind control experiments - used native children from Canadian residential schools as involuntary test subjects, under agreements with the Catholic, Anglican and United churches. These illegal tests continued until the 1970’s while the ambassadors to the Vatican were sipping Brunello with the Pope.

Birth control education at my Catholic High School consisted of being forced to watch abortion films at the age of 13. When addressing what you believe to be your role in fulfilling divine intervention, consider the Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928 passed in Alberta, allowing any inmate of a native residential school to be sterilized upon the approval of the school Principal. While it may be easy for those arrogant Catholics to justify interfering in the lives of women in the name of Christ, it is abhorrent that one can so easily bury the recent past to justify ones own perceived sanctity.

I am no longer a practicing Catholic because the doctrine of the church is motivated once again by it’s egoistic mission to dictate morality and regain the political power it once held so dear. The only divine purpose for it’s continued pro-life hypocrisy is to ensure that this flock of demonizers continues to multiply rapidly in developing third world countries.

Hats off to Obama for standing proud and fearlessly before this institution and inspiring a new generation of Catholic Americans to chart a new course with humility and respect for others.

Barry’s ND campaign speech validated that new college grads are useful idiots. A Cardinal in South Chicago brought Barry to Christ? LOL! “God Damn America!” for over 20 years. That Cardinal? Somehow any mention of Rev Wright was missed. Must have been a teleprompter malfunction. Barry ACORN Soetoro is a Radical deceitful fraud that so easily manipulates the gullible and naive. Stunning really.

BCHAN: BTW you don't know what Jesus would or would not do - because it is obvious you don't know a dam.. thing about the teachings of Jesus or your bible. You can pick and choose who or what is killed -who to hate and you talking about slavery, which your church and religion, along with others, stood by and let happen and said nothing- just like the war in Iraq. What a bunch of #%#$@.

Many people seem to be saying that the issue here was not abortion, but the fact that Notre Dame wanted to honor someone who believes the opposite of what they represent. So Notre Dame is against making education affordable for everyone, against getting healthcare to those in need, against strengthening our economy and returning the U.S. to the powerhouse we need and want to be, and so much more?

President Obama's position on abortion is NOT the only thing he represents. Notre Dame officials knew that which is most likely why he was invited to speak. Why others don't seem to be able to see that is astounding. Whether they like it or not, President Obama will play a large role in the lives of those graduates in the next 4 years and beyond. So to have him come and say a few words is something that some of them may have needed to hear. Especially those who despite spending 4 years and tens of thousands of dollars on their education, still didn't have a job lined up.

People seem to have blown this completely out of proportion. Yes, President Obama may not share the same views as Catholics, but does that mean Catholics do not associate with ANYone who doesn't believe in the same things as they do? Do all Catholics check the moral and religious beliefs of everyone they consider doing business with and refuse patronage to those who don't fall in line with them?
Just when you start hearing that the Church is trying to modernize itself to bring back those who have left, something offputting like Sunday's spectacle happens and takes them straight back to square one.

TO BCHAN: I must be a great writer for you to steal my words - I mean all of my words LOL - typical right wing hypocrisy - can't think for yourselves. What a joke you are. Please use your own words creep! BTW it is not your University plagiarist, is you name on it? You think you own everything? Oh, yea you do, even my words - typical right wing nut LOL. Can't think, non-creative, small minded, and plagiarist.

Ok BCHAN, well done, by aknowledging your unwillingness to compromise, you've nullified your contribution to the debate. Your views are no longer relevant because they provide no room for mutual consideration. And since you have no interest in refining your understanding, please kindly refrain from posting further comments as they detract from an otherwise productive discussion.

There is no common ground on abortion. Just the word itself should be detestable. But our society, somehow has watered it down to make it a right to choose. We have made it another convenient form of contraceptive. If I remember right, Mr. Obama said he wouldn't want his daughters to be punished with raising a child because they made a mistake. We have taken human life that starts with the unborn and have degraded and desensitized its importance and value. Saving salmon and horses are now more important then human life. To stand there calling for commonality on this issue and yet strongly supports all phases of abortion does not look like someone who wants to reduce abortions. He can say what he wants but his actions speak loader. And for us as people to use the so many deaths already excuse is weak and selfish and just a way to justify aborting pre dawn human life.

Notre Dam what a shame.

Having grown up before the era of Dred Scott, I would like to remind people that their desired end game, to have slavery outlawed. would merely take us back to the begining of the problem. Having lived through the era of outlawed slavery, I can assure you prohibition of slavery was not an effective option. Additionally it had many inhumane and decidedly immoral side effects. What would happen to the slaves if people of good will on both sides of the legal debate simply set them free? Right now because so much effort is wasted in protesting and protecting a free man's right to own slaves, the baby continues to be thrown out with the bath water. The lesson of Solomon and the two mothers may apply hear. The truly caring mother was willing to compromise to save her child. If we share the same goal let us get about that business

This is embarrassing. A couple days ago I wrote a piece saying how fortunate I was to have a Jesuit education where I was taught the ability to think clearly through this sort of thing.http://tinyurl.com/p42sz3

Then I see a Jesuit--spouting this sort of intellectual mush. Barack Obama is not a transformational figure who has come to save the Church from itself. And how over the top is it to compare this American politician to Julius Ceaser?

In about a year, if you dare go back and read this nonsense, I think you will feel pretty silly.

1A2B3C1 wrote "I'm concerned that this 'intermediate strategy' is an end game." Having grown up before the era of Roe v Wade, I would like to remind people that their desired end game, to have abortions outlawed. would merely take us back to the begining of the problem. Having lived through the era of outlawed abortion, I can assure you prohibition of abortions was not an effective option. Additionally it had many inhumane and decidedly immoral side effects. What would happen to the abortion rate if people of good will on both sides of the legal debate were able to work together to minimise the percieved need for an abortion. Right now because so much effort is wasted in protesting and protecting a womans right, the baby continues to be thrown out with the bath water. The lesson of Solomon and the two mothers may apply hear. The truly caring mother was willing to compromise to save her child. If we share the same goal let us get about that business.

I just want to know what those with the pro-life position are willing to do reduce the number of abortions that are being performed. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and as such, a stop-gap approach needs to be in place to prevent unwanted pregnancies until the law is changed, if it ever is. Raising the volume of your message, demonizing dissent, and electing republican candidates have proved to be badly ineffective.

For the pro-choice supporters, what are you willing to do that will make a choice to abort unnecessary? As it stands now, the perception of the pro-choice movement is that you are selfish and want to have sex without consequences.

I am an independent voter who believes abortion is morally and spiritually wrong but it is between me and my creator until man's law makes it between me and the government. President Obama's approach is the best shot for pro-life because, as I've already said, Roe v. Wade is settled law for now; therefore, the focus needs to be on saving today's babies while the general public's attitude about abortion changes.

Dear CaptSugarMeTimbers:

I appreciate your concern. However, there can be no compromise with Evil. Either our society is based upon the idea that all human life is sacred, or it is not. I hold that it is, and I will never compromise with those who disagree.

And neither would Jesus.

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Jesus, Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." -- (Jesus, Luke 12:49-53)

I work out of my home and now and then sucker myself into reading these blogs. About halfway through reading the comments it becomes apparent that three or four borderline lunatics monopolize the discourse. What they all seem to have in common is undeservedly high opinion of their mental capabilities and a pre-Copernican attitude that they are the center of their universe.
Dear WP: I recently took a poll that asked under what circumstances I'd be willing to pay for an online edition of your paper. Please, news only, sign me up.
Dear WP: I recently took a poll that asked under what circumstances I'd be willing to pay for an online edition of your paper. Please, news only, sign me up.

As a Georgetown student, I am disgusted by how sycophantic Fr. Reese is in his writing. I consider myself a moderate conservative. I do not have a problem with Obama speaking at ND or GU. I have a problem with how these institutions -- and Fr. Reese -- bow down to Obama's machine. Notre Dame should not have conferred a degree on Obama, and Georgetown should not have covered the IHS insignia in Gaston Hall. There is a sensible way to stand up for identity, heritage, tradition and beliefs without becoming a vehicle for blatant political messaging and outreach. The abortion debate is polarizing, and the Catholic Church should remain resilient in its position. Fr. Reese simply likes to infuse his opinion for his fifteen minutes of fame.

HELLO!!! Sheeeesh! You people on BOTH sides are still just throwing rocks at each other. STOP! Pleeeeease! On behalf of compassionate moderates worldwide, enough is enough! It's time to get the message: We have something we can ALL agree to work toward, and that is reducing the numbers of unwanted pregnancies. That's it. That's where we both win. Can I get an "AMEN!"?

I think the hysteria we see in this thread is *exactly* why blustering about the only thing that can be done about abortion is to sexualize children, require all teenagers to use chemical contraceptives, claim they don't cause any harm and call people "theocrats' if they believe in Good and Evil and workk towards policies that reflect the Good.

Can you even *hear* yourselves, 'Pro-abortionists?' You're not proposing anything good, you just want Presidents that support your agenda and sanction your primal physical desires.
You can call that "reason" in America, but you can't hide the fact that our *government* has to be rbased upon a moral code of some sort.
And morality says that Obama is in favor of killing babies.
We went over this during the election. It's obvious.
Not that that seems to matter to you guys.
You're not even *in* the 'debate' at this point. Just screaming like your Master down below told you to.

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 the high ideals?

Another campaign speech by a man who has already been elected and sworn in. I'm sure I'm not alone in regretting my vote for Obama, cast in his favor largely because of his promises to work for civility in our political discourse. That's a promise he has broken, his meaningless little show at ND notwithstanding. He can afford to be gracious where the abortion issue is concerned, because, as a legal question, it's over. The pro-choice side has won, overwhelmingly, with abortion rights extending well beyond where a majority of Americans would prefer, and the victory, having been won on constitutional grounds rather than at the polling places, is virtually bulletproof. So, he had nothing to lose by reaching out to a defeated opponent. Yet, when there is actually something at stake, Obama's first response to opponents is the same sort of incivility and demagoguery he promised to avoid. For example, fund managers fulfilling their fiduciary duties by opposing the President's lawless trampling on the rights of investors in their funds were vilified as "speculators." Where Obama is concerned, civility is an early casualty when his losing an argument would actually have consequences. Obama opposes demagoguery only when it is not his own. If there had been any chance of the pro-choice side losing ground, there would have been no civility -- he would have loudly vilified as right-wing religious extremists anyone seeking to limit abortion rights.

"What a Hoot! This article from a Jesuit priest whose own University covered the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ so that his emperor would not be offended or upstaged on his "Hollywood" moment."

Err, no, I think that'd be because unlike certain others in our political life, that'd be cause he's not claiming to be representing or deriving authority from your religious institutions.

What a Hoot! This article from a Jesuit priest whose own University covered the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ so that his emperor would not be offended or upstaged on his "Hollywood" moment.

Smile, Father Reese...the wolf in sheeps clothing hides no more.

Jesus Christ was born through a woman, like each and every one of the 50 million children tortured and murdered through abortion. THIS IS the REAL WAR against humanity...and the numbers and cruelty are shocking.

If You Want Peace, Work for Justice, For the Unborn Child!

The Washington Post cracks me up with their journalistic slants on all things not secular! ;-)

Just because I don't agree doesn't make me wrong and them right...THIS WAS THE REASON "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" WAS WRITTEN INTO THE CONSTITUTION.

They say PRO-LIFE or PRO-CHOICE.
Why do they even feel they have the authority to speak on someone else's situation? Who asked them?

I say MY LIFE, MY BUSINESS, MY SITUATION, MY CHOICE.

As I watch and observe BO, I realize that he is a special person. How sad that America prefers to demonize this person. No, he is not the messiah, but let me say this, in my life time which spans many decade, I have yet to see one as unique as he. It takes a special person to right the great liner America, and Barack Obama is such a one.
I have lived through interesting times. I have heard great speakers in my time, however, he stands way above all others. I know its hard to acknowledge one who stands above the din of hate and prejudice, but America he is such a one. Having worked in ghettoes and mingled with the uneducated, I know its really hard to impart information if one persists in pursuing jaded ideas founded on faulty info, so I sympatize with him as he tries to lead by example, as he tries to show that there is a better way to live than how the world has lived for many years. America, support him, because it seems that he is a man of the times, a special man. Obviously, he supercedes even the best and brightest, because he speaks and lives from the heart.
I for one am proud to live in these times, to have seen a once-in-a-century figure. What his future will be is unknown, but this I hope, that he'll live to see his children reach maturity. I have also been called a special person, but whereas I refused to give my talents to an oppressive system, because of anger over slavery, Iraq, and the other crimes of those in power, he seems to have the ability to rise above the norms of the angry, the racist, the haters and for that I know he is above most of us as a visionary. America, you are growing old, and can only retain your prominence by adjusting to the world of tomorrow, a world where respect for each other will be paramount. I imagine that if you all got behind him amazing things would be accomplished, but alas, I imagine that this is only wishful thinking, I fully expect that you will reject his doctrine even though it seem to closely mimick the teachings of most great leaders viz., M.Ghandi, J.Christ,etc.. All the best America. I wish you luck, you need it if you will continue to be the leader of the world.

Notre Dame was an odd venue for Obama to discuss abortion policy at all.

****************

Two words - politically expedient - unofficial motto of the Obama administration.

I think the hysteria we see in this thread is *exactly* why blustering about the only thing that can be done about abortion is to stop sex ed, make it hard to get contraceptives, claim they don't work, and call people 'Baby-killers' if they pursue practical policies, (as opposed to the outright bans which *don't* work, anyway...)

Can you even *hear* yourselves, 'Pro-lifers?' You're not proposing anything that will work, you just want Presidents that support your drama and oppressive theocratic desires.

You can call that your religion in America, but you can't hide the fact that our *government* has to be reality-based.

Reality is that Obama is *not* the 'pro abortion trying to kill our children' guy your hysteria seems to have made him out to be in your minds.

We went over this during the election. It's not even *true.*

Not that that seems to matter to you guys.

You're not even *in* the 'debate' at this point. Just screaming like someone told you to.

"while obama talks middleground he is busy making sure and workinf for as many abortions as possible."
Posted by: ChooseBestCandidate

ChooseBestCandidate, if you are still out there:

How exactly is Obama working for as many abortions as possible?? And, please, be specific.

What executive orders did he issue? What legislation did he propose? Or maybe he is actually performing abortions?

***********

Stepping quickly into an abortion debate he largely avoided as a candidate, President Obama on Friday overturned a controversial ban on U.S. support to international aid groups that provide abortion services around the world. (LA Times).

Notre Dame's commencement ceremony was not the correct venue for that protest. They TOTALLY disrespected the ceremony and the graduates...they WERE brought into this world, their parents raised them and paid for them to go to college...so WHTA DID THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ABORTION?
NOTHING-
As a CHRISTIAN I was totally embarrassed at the "UNCHRIST-LIKE BEHAVIOR displayed. So many so called Christians tote the Bible around like a shield then have the nerve to judge every man woman and child because they don't agree with their beliefs. How is that Christ like?

They're fighting about something that's not able to sustain life without a host. Well, sometimes the host happens to be an addict, a rape victim or a careless, misguided teen who had no ability or desire to have or care for a child BUT THEY ARE CONVINCED TO HAVE IT ANYWAY. So what about all those kids belonging to those women and those who were harassed and threatened at the abortion clinics?
If anything, they need to go to the local Child Welfare office and ADOPT those displaced, parent-less and unwanted children. Then, they would ahve something tbetter to do with their time than get into other people's business.

I like the comment about "Only God can create and destroy life. No human being has the authority to do so." Where has this person been? The Church has developed arguments sanctioning killing, e.g., the Just War theory. The Church wouldn't agree, but it engages in situational ethics, i.e., sometimes a commandment has to be violated to prevent worse transgressions. In short, the Church has opened the door for qualification of the letter of God's commandments. It has also recognized an individual's right to self-defense; why, then, does it want to deny the right to seek an abortion to a mother whose life is threatened by her carrying a pregnancy to term, which is an example of self-defense? At the very least, the details of both positions are subject to discussion and conciliation. That is what Obama is saying, and he is right. People need to be willing to enter into dialogue with those of differing opinions in this society of multi. Catholics cannot be forced to have abortions, to be euthanized or to sanctify same sex marriage. Their goal should be to retain these rights and not to impose their opinions on those who don't have their value system. Obama offered an olive branch by stating he would support legislation to enable pro-life medical professionals to refuse to perform abortions.

>>As the President told the graduates, "no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history."

That cooperation, Mr Reese (sorry, Matt 23:9 states to call no man Father (regarding those that shepherd).. for our true Father is in heaven) will not be possible by man. Nor will understanding. For both were denied by man in Eden. For human beings to determine good and bad, right and wrong looked like 'good fruit' and was 'pleasing'...but truly was a wrong choice. Here is where we began losing absolutes and true knowledge. Here is where we find oursleves today. Very interesting how the Christian community doesn't hear much about the analogy of the two trees and what the decisions surrounding them has done.

Those decisions will be corrected upon the completion of mankinds 6K years on earth and at the the return of our Lord and Savior to set up His kingdom on earth, that includes a new earth. No St Peter's gate. No harps. That is all confusion, much like how the RC church is experiencing other types of confusion now with some backing the president at Notre Dame, and other who are not.

Only one answer for mankind. And it will not come through the pope and the RC church.

Notre Dame was an odd venue for Obama to discuss abortion policy at all.

It is taking Government into a new realm.

It belonged at a town hall meeting.

The Bishop and people arrested outside for saying the heart of the Catholic Church's prayer, was the actual truth of what a poor decsion Obama made.

The upset was not that rights were being imposed by the Church, it was the upset that a mortal sin would be discussed there at all.

Hail Mary, full of grace.
Our Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,
Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

Avoiding Jesus...
Dear Father Reese,
You have presented your support of the style of dialogue between differing minds. But, you have not explained how Jesus, our King, dialogues with His Church and His bishops. You have not shared how the taking of a life of a child within the mother's womb so deeply offends our God.

Why is it that Christians expect us to respect their point of view on abortion, but others' views (say, that there is no soul, and life begins well after conception) gets no respect from them?

I sympathize with Christians who believe fetuses contain souls (and indeed, that souls exist), and I understand why they feel abortion is murder, even if I don't agree.

If these Christians do not respect my point of view, why should they expect me to respect theirs?

Fr. Thomas J. Reese, S.J.

Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss.
I hope you are just fooled by the sheep skin. See the Truth - the teaching of Jesus and His Church which you represent in a special way. You and your kind has just surrendered to Obama - being conquered. You said it right.
How foolish. Choose GOD instead!!

I don't feel like having to be 'charitable' to you as you are not charitable to the innocent kids who die everyday. You should know better as a 'priest'.

I pray that God will give you a chance to convert.

Pray, pray, pray for conversion.
Ken

CCNL: GOD gave each human being free will. There will be no abortion if there are no unwanted pregnancies. America has the highest abortion rate even though ALL the countries in Europe allow abortion, including the very Catholic Spain. American men and women must exercise CONTROL so there will be no unwanted babies; they can enjoy sex but must, MUST be cognizant of the consequences. Free will.

>>>>>THE COMMUNITY HAS PROTESTED OBAMA, AND IT WASN'T THE FIRST NOR LAST TIME EITHER.

>>>>>have a nice day. :)

LUCY 2008, please learn to spell before posting. Poor spelling really doesn't help your cause.

Pharasees /= Pharisees
hypocracy /= hypocrisy

Oh, and please learn when to use commas.

I'm curious, for those of you who are TOTALLY against abortion, how many unwanted babies have you adopted?

"while obama talks middleground he is busy making sure and workinf for as many abortions as possible."
Posted by: ChooseBestCandidate

ChooseBestCandidate, if you are still out there:

How exactly is Obama working for as many abortions as possible?? And, please, be specific.

What executive orders did he issue? What legislation did he propose? Or maybe he is actually performing abortions?

"this is about this being a CATHOLIC institution, and the CATHOLIC faith's views on abortion is NOT negotiable. If you support someone who is so radically for abortion and against the born alive infant act... you are NOT a Catholic..."

Annie, if it takes ignoring the fact that Obama is *not* a 'radical pro-abortion' person, and ignoring the fact that Obama opposed that piece of legislation because it was *redundant* with laws that already existed, as regarded what it was ostensibly about, (and was only there to introduce Unconstitutional language that suited other agendas...) to 'be a Catholic,'

...Well. Maybe 'true Catholics' aren't the ones we ought to be listening to if we'd like good and productive policy.

It always amazes me how hateful so-called christians are. You have the audacity to judge someone else because you don't agree with them. You have the audacity to present yourselves as righteous and better than anyone else. My question is who made you judge - only your God can judge. How may children have any of you so-called right to life creeps adopted? None, I would suspect because you don't give a crap about life you just want to control everyone else with your fake issues. STAY OUT OF MY BEDROOM AND OUT OF MY WOMB YOU CREEPS!! You are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites who probably don't volunteer to help anyone other than the other right wing zealots, you probably have never read to book to a living child other than your own - why don't you keep your outdated, evil, small minds to yourself. I don't care what you believe as long as you're not trying to put your belief on me. The majority of American people are pro choice despite your fake poll. Where were all you concerned Catholics when the priests were raping "innocent" living children? Where were you when Bush & Co were starting an illegal war which has killed over 4000 of our men and women and hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children in Iraq? Oh, I forgot you don't give a darn about that, do you? You people are nothing but a bunch of right wing losers who will continue to lose because you have NO RIGHT to tell me how to live my life meanwhile you are doing every dirty trick and God knows what else behind closed doors! Hypocrites! Most of you wouldn't recognize Jesus, or God for that matter, if they came down from the sky and slapped you over the head with a bolt of lightening, and God forbid if Jesus happened to be a man of color, he would be run out of town by your blind hatred and small minds.

THE COMMUNITY HAS PROTESTED OBAMA, AND IT WASN'T THE FIRST NOR LAST TIME EITHER.
have a nice day. :)

"the faithless anti-Christian magazine NewsWEAK."

Newsweek? A faithless anti-Christian magazine? I tell you, the radical right-wing christian extremists have lost their minds. This is serious delusional paranoia. Religious fanaticism is un-American.

How many babies born to unmarried mothers, teenagers, drug addicts, or women who are not emotionally able to care for them are screaming, also? How many babies are screaming because they're starving? How
many are screaming because they're abandoned? How many are tortured because their mother's trying to kill them after they're born? Why don't those screams bother you as much? what about the living hell these babies are put through? How many of these babies who survive being born --become addicts themselves? How do we stop this vicious circle unless we let mothers who aren't emotionally ready to have a baby, have an abortion? We are all
pro-life, however there are many, many women who become pregnant who don't want to be mothers. That is where pro-choice is a necessity.

Wow, you guys have me in tears and howling. My throat hurts from laughing - really funny satire in the posts here. You guys are too much.

Have you noticed that the Catholic clerics who fawn over non-Catholic liberals like Obama are universally withered and old?

The gymnastics of logic that Fr Reese uses to justify the honoring (note the conference of the honorary degree) of the most pro-abort president in history is amusing but pitiable.

There is something sad and pitiable about being 60 or 70 and having an identity crisis. Am I really Roman Catholic? Do I really believe all that stuff about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church on matters of faith and morals? Have I lived my life as a parasite of an ostensibly Catholic order? Should I have "manned up" like an open homosexual and declared my true aspiration: free-range academic.

>>My question is why doesn't this loving, merciful and just God do something?

He isnt, for now (but not much longer) because those who were before us (in Eden) chose to determine good and evil for themselves (wrong choice of symbolic tree). And, since we were made free moral agents (not with an immortal soul as the 'mother' church claims) we are not being treated as yellow pencils in learing our own self-inflicted lessons. Our 6K years of learning is just about up. Then, and only then for many, will the absolutes become very clear.

On May 17, 2009 the US Catholic Bishops lost the moral high ground on abortion. President Obama should be congratulated in showing our Catholic Bishops how the Gospel Message can be proclaimed with integrity.

We either solve the problem of abortion with dialogue, because history has shown the law cannot, or we continue to engage in name calling and lose sight of the greater good which is a genuine love of neighbor.

Perhaps it is time for our Catholic family to recognize we need to respectfully to listen to each other.

Joe Murray
Rainbow Sash Movement
www.rainbowsashmovement.com

I like this idea of women controlling men's anatomy. I think this could prove a viable solution - vasectomies for all men! After all, less risk of complications, less costly, and more effective. Hubby wants to tango but wants wife to take hormonal pill or have surgery to avoid unplanned pregancy? Vasectomy! Yeah. BTW, the men that say that they wouldn't if they were a woman...while i give you credit for leaving the decision/burden to women, you shouldn't speculate on something that will never happen. Until you are faced with that choice, you can't say definitively.

I'm sorry, but...

>>>WARNING, WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ IS LEFTIST MEDIA PROPAGANDA

"President Obama's reception at Notre Dame showed once again that a new generation of Americans, including Catholics, is looking for a different kind of leader, not one who speaks down to his audience, demands strict loyalty and demonizes opponents, but one who addresses complexity with honesty, acknowledges disagreements and tries to bring people together for the common good."

>>>SEE WHAT I MEAN?

Are you serious? "...not one who speaks down to his audience, demands strict loyalty and demonizes opponents..."

Who, I ask, might then do such a thing? Surely not someone who was elected twice by proud American voters.

Reese, this whole article makes me sick; the title alone puts a bad taste in my mouth, you PUNDIT.

You think people don't see how you favor a liberal politician over a people's, a community's protesting conviction for the sanctity of LIFE? To simply dismiss them as inconsiquencial to Obama's anointed aura? GET REAL.

THE COMMUNITY HAS PROTESTED OBAMA, AND IT WASN'T THE FIRST NOR LAST TIME EITHER.

have a nice day. :)

people are missing the main point. This isn't about whether abortion is right or wrong...

this is about this being a CATHOLIC institution, and the CATHOLIC faith's views on abortion is NOT negotiable. If you support someone who is so radically for abortion and against the born alive infant act... you are NOT a Catholic... and to continue to call yourself a catholic is spitting in the face of church, thus you are not recognized by the church.

if you feel so strongly about abortion rights, you should NOT be Catholic. there are plenty of other religions. you can't change what is unchangable. Abortion is murder according to the Catholic faith, has been since the faith was created 2000 years ago... it was ruled infallible by the pope (in otherwords unchanging).

if you don't like that, find another religion. A true catholic can NOT support someone who is so radical on the subject of abortion, and so against a bill to protect babies BORN ALIVE after botched abortion attempts, leaving them to die lonely and long deaths.

I listened to President Obama's speech at Notre Dame on-line at MSNBC. It was one of the best speeches I have heard. The President was overwhelmingly supported by the graduating student body. You could hear them and watch and individually from the video cam. What was said by the President was important and meaningful. His call for service in a diverse world of good people was an important learning point. Good can still be accomplished by engaging the world and people that don't believe exactly as you do. With abortion, the two sides will never agree on the right of choice. However, I support the President's view and actions to make abortion legal AND rare by making funding and education available for pregnant women and for families that need uber-cheap birth control and family planning education. Denmark does it and they have one of the lowest abortion rates in the developed world. Three cheers for graduating class of 2009 at Notre Dame.

I'm not surprised by the President's remarks. Frankly, I agree. We should focus on eliminating the need for abortion. Prolife supporters should focus on increased birth control education and access, promote adoption, financial support for the pregnant, preventing rape and incest.

If made illegal, we would drive abortion underground. It will continue regardless. If it is to happen, why risk the mother's life as well. Abortion belongs in a clean, sterile environment, not back alleys.

Finally, Christ is both in the abortion clinics and out. He loves not just the child, but the mother and the staff too. Pray for those who are driven to such a choice. Stand with them in their pain and loss, and love them as Christ loves you.

pedraza1,
Just curious.
Does the Obama koolaide come in grape cherry and lemon-lime?
Which did you get?

Pres. Obama spoke truly and well. Our Constitution guarantees freedom to practice the religion of your choice and implicity includes the freedom NOT to practice any religion. It does not, however, guarantee the right of any single religion to make its own tenets the law of the land. Anti-abortionists are free to bring all conceptions to term. But how can they argue that the rest of us, who may not see abortion as utterly immoral no matter the circumstances, should be made to obey their religious laws?

Looking at the last census reports straight out of Michigan State seems to point in the other direction........

The other reports stinks of persuasion from the other side........

The question remains when will the US govt conduct another census like the one they did in 98......

77 million Brits have confirmed this in one of the closest races seen on the European continent ever since Roman Empire.

The consensus appears very clear for the majority.....

salil

He came, he spoke, he further deceived

Jon Meacham is the editor of the faithless anti-Christian magazine NewsWEAK. How could he even be writing on faith except for faith in Darwin or Panspermia or new age channelers?

After perusing through Obama's speech, I noticed he brought up alot of collecivization unity garbage. A little study of collectivization shows it was used to persecute citizens opposing the big government state. A few titles like, Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine and The History of the Gulag: From Collectivization to the Great Terror add proof to this. New age channelers, besides having a foundation in the third reich (see http://dispolitico.wordpress.com) often speek of collectivization with a purpose to persecute non-apostate Judeo-Christians or people opposed to big government. A simple Google search about new age collecitivation brought up (1) a pdf entitled: 'Welcome to the New Age: Working with Collective Consciousness' and (2) a critical analysis saying "New Age Channeling: An Overview. by Michael Alan Cox, D.Min. ... better place to live by encouraging the collective well-being" and (3) a quote saying 'Since the New Age channeling craze hit — with a big assist from Shirley .... Self" or what psychoanalyst Carl Jung called the "Collective Unconscious."'

Obama's speech was very very dangerous and deceptive. Wake up people. Jon Meacham...wake up (and I don't mean a new age awakening).

Dottydo,
you're citing narcissism articles? I'm sorry I used big words, let me slow down:
I am asking you to site any respectable news source (the blog you sited is not one of these) that asserts that doctors are leaving America 'in droves'.
Thank you for trying, though.

Regarding the post by Curmudgeon10 | May 18, 2009 Quite frankly, I think Obama's religious credentials are as phony as the day is long. As he has yet to adopt a regular church schedule since ascending to the throne, it appears to me that his attendance at the Rev. Wright's School of Racial Animosity and Communion was simply a political move, as are most things he does. Clearly, a religious man --- which he is not --- would understand that there is no room for "civil discussions" and "differing points of view" when the issue is a strict teaching of the church, as it views God's demands on all of us.
-------
This post is not by a person who knows the truth, but a man that wants to believe his assumption. This is hypocracy and the like talk of Pharasees that Jesus warned about. It is those self-righteous Church goers of "rules" who pray in the public who were thrown out of the temple. Jesus spoke of living the life of the Golden Rule. Let's learn from what Jesus said and not what the Church people of power say nor a man who makes outrageous statements- assumption- to support self-righteousness.

-- lest we forget
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;

Jeremiah 1:5

I personally am opposed to slavery but if you aren't, I think we can still have an open dialogue about it.

I know that you don't think that slaves are human beings and therefore you can own them or even kill them. I respect your feelings and believe that we can find common ground. After all, we both have the same goal to have fewer slaves in our nation.

Certainly, we can compromise on this issue. Let's be open-minded.

I am somewhat confused by the Father's almost obsequious account of the President's speech. Just who was he referring to when he said, "a new generation of Americans, including Catholics, is looking for a different kind of leader, not one who speaks down to his audience, demands strict loyalty and demonizes opponents, but one who addresses complexity with honesty, acknowledges disagreements and tries to bring people together for the common good?"

That sounds like a very apt description of the current Democrat Party leadership. What has the President done to distance himself from that kind of rhetoric and to deserve Father Reese's fawning adoration? And what sorts of "demonization" await those who fail the good Father's "strict loyalty" tests?

Father Reese has forgotten one of the principles of Ignatian Spirituality - to think with the Church. Accepting a stance which allows for abortion is certainly not part of Ignatius' teaching. It may be Reese's, but not Ignatius' or the Church's. To a greater degree the University of Notre Dame has forgotten its roots when it started to spotlight individuals diametrically opposed to Church teaching. True, Obama could have (and should have) declined the invitation, but why would a politician do so? That misses the point, which is that Notre Dame is a Catholic University that is to espouse Catholic Teaching; and that Reese is a leading member of the Society of Jesus, which teaches that followers of Jesus are to think with the Church. Unfortunately, both are Catholic in name only. That, more than anything, is misleading.

rukidding0:
You and the Taliban have much in common.
Too bad for you this is America, home of the FREE. As in, you are 'free' to leave this country (that protects your rights and prevents me from passing a law making it legal to execute you for sedition) and form your own fundamentalist Christian nation somewhere else. This country never has been, is not now, and will never be a country ruled by Christian ethos, no matter how much you want it that way.
Your opinion is not fact. Your attitude guarantees that you will never get an ounce of respect from anyone you disagree with until you realize this. The reason your friends never tell you this is because they know you are a blowhard who will only yell them down. Enjoy what's left of your empty, bitter life.

DAMNEDGENTLEME,
Site an American rag sheet for what people are actually saying/
Are you just silly?

I can give you these two locations and you can study without bias, the European viewpoints yourself.

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=symptoms

You should attend more events and study the protesters to see exactly what they are saying.

believe abortion opponents when they say they believe every fertilized egg is worth trying to save. So why can't/won't at they least START with the common ground of reducing unwanted pregnancies???
----------------
nothing wrong with reducing abortions HOWEVER, that is not the subject. the subject is WHY did notre dame choose someone who is the ultimate opposite of what they represent to HONOR?

you can work with someone to reduce abortions. you dont HONOR them however. ALSO, what obama says and what he DOES are two different things... for this alone is a good reason why he was not someone to held up to new graduates as an example of the life they should pursue.

while obama talks middleground he is busy making sure and workinf for as many abortions as possible.

Abortion is a horrible choice to have to make, but no one not the church or the state has the right to interfere with what is a matter of conscience for the woman having to make that choice. I would have to agree with President Obama that we should be working to give women other choices and to find common ground in reducing the number of abortions performed in our country. As a man I cannot begin to understand what a woman goes through when she faces having to choose abortion and therefore cannot pass judgment on any woman who makes the choice to abort. I do know venom and violence serves neither side well.

Go placidly amid the noise and haste America. President Obama is a splendid leader and we as a nation are indeed fortunate that he has chosen to take the job and work with our citizenry toward that more perfect union we all wish for. Obamanos. Good work again Mr. President

I was just wondering what percentage of pro-life people own hand guns, and what percentage of pro choice people own them? How serious are we that "all human life is holy"? The already born children are dying at a rate estimated of over 20,000 a day. A day.

Only God can create and destroy life.

No human being has any authority to do so.

I was just wondering what percentage of pro-life people own hand guns, and what percentage of pro choice people own them? How serious are we that "all human life is holy"? The already born children are dying at a rate estimated of over 20,000 a day. A day.

The President made a good faith attempt to present the reasons why it is imperative for the American people, and the world's people, to find common ground for discussion regarding the issues that currently define the national debate. There are two ways to argue. Either one attempts to find consensus, or one simply descends to right fighting. In all the rhetoric posted here, I find not one of the so-called right to life persons proposing any assistance to the women they want to force to have children. Not one instance of an idea for counseling for the women who they want to bear unwanted children. These are the same people who want the social safety net shredded and the women coerced into the workforce, regardless of their age, skills, or any other factor. They want to prevent same sex couples from adopting the children who result from the forced births, and have no solutions to offer other than NO. They want to stand at the opening of every woman's womb and be the birth cops but they want absolutely nothing to do with the children they have forced into this world. And, when those children, because they grew up unwanted and unloved, turn into the criminals and murderers we KNOW result from just such homes, they are more than happy THEN to stand as the executioner for the baby who had a right to life, but no rights to anything else. These hypocrites will continue to preach this nonsense until those of us who see the results of their preaching, stand up and bear true witness and stop trying to excuse their uncaring, unfeeling rhetoric. I was at many a meeting in the 60's and 70's as the RTL movement came into being. All the women who were anti-abortion had to offer was that pregnancy was punishment for sex outside marriage; and since they had been subjected to this punishment, it was only fair that all women be subjected to the same punishment. In those days these people were simply called anti-abortion. It was the fault of those of us who were simply trying to save women's lives that we allowed them to take on the title Right To Life. And it is still our fault that we do not demand they define: who's right to what kind of life? who's life at the expense of who's life? We have allowed this group of people to define the debate, and I fear it is now impossible to ever redefine it.
Mr Obama's speech was great, but probably 40 years too late.

While I type this comment thousands of babies around the world will die of thirst, hunger, pestilence, malaria, dirty water, abuse, war, natural disasters and all manner of evil. My question is why doesn't this loving, merciful and just God do something? Anyone? I thought so. When are devoutly religious people going to stop painting themselves into a corner. I use to be one of those.

man2man,
Your input was funny.
I recently read an essay calling Soros the anti-christ, with Al Gore and Obama the minions who must keep the return of Jesus Christ for happening...hence abortions.

I also read one that called Obama the second coming of Hitler the anti-christ manifesting once more for another asault to keep Jesus Christ from returning.

Maybe you guys have a minion over there across the pond.
Ha ha.

Living here in South Bend as I do, I noticed the protesters were all out-of-town trouble-makers looking for attention.
The overwhelming majority are honored by the President's visit. Mr. Obama made it all about the graduates, not him nor the few who showed up to detract from the commencement activities.

how do you TRUTHFULLY "honor" someone who represents and fights for the opposite of what you believe is right?

this is just another thing added to the wimp column that will become another joke when obama has officially been exposed as the fraud he is.

In reality, having a president who promotes reducing the number of abortions is about as good as you can do. Even the Republicans politicians would like to keep the status quo - what did Bush really do in his six years controlling all three branches? Move away from the all or nothing approach, which never has been a realistic goal for either side.

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 the high ideals?

He came, he spoke, he conned.

Can someone here please explain how people, who differ on the legality of abortion, working together to reduce the number of abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies is in any way a bad thing??

I believe abortion opponents when they say they believe every fertilized egg is worth trying to save. So why can't/won't at they least START with the common ground of reducing unwanted pregnancies???

It almost sounds like the position is "we can't work together save some future embryos unless we can guarentee all future embryos are safe"???

Isn't that position sacrificing hundreds of thousands of possible future lives???

But please tell us, CC, how many abortions were performed each year, before 1973?

It's impossible to know exactly, but a great many academic studies have that number somewhere between 200,000 and 1.2 million. Much of this is extrapolation from data on women who showed up in emergency rooms with complications from back-alley abortion.

There is reason to think the rate of abortions now is about where it was before Roe v. Wade, because this tends to be the pattern in nations that de-criminalize abortions -- the rate of abortions goes up for a few years, then settles back to what it was before. The biggest difference is that where abortions are legal, many fewer women suffer medical complications from back-alley abortions. (The Alan Guttmacher Institute is a good source of data on abortion trends.)

I get it that a lot of people believe abortion is murder, but the truth is that making abortion illegal doesn't stop it. It doesn't even slow it down. The rate of abortion is higher in Latin America than it is in the U.S., and abortion is illegal in nearly all of Latin America. The rate of abortion is a lot lower in the Netherlands than in the U.S., and the Netherlands has about the most liberal laws about everything.

The only sure way to reduce the rate of abortion is to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancies, as President Obama said. Criminalizing abortion is just sweeping the problem under the rug -- driving it underground.

All of the posters here seem to be of opposing values and beliefs. I say unless you are a woman #1 your opinion on this matter means nothing, including mine. I personally would not choose to have an abortion if I were pregnant, being a man this is an impossibility. But, I do not feel as though any person has the right to make decisions for another. A fetus is a group of cells until it has a chance for survivability then it becomes a potential human. But who are any of us to make a personal private decision for another. Mind your own business and let this issue lay between a woman and the God of her choosing. That is my opinion.

dottydo,
where do you get your lying lies?
I defy you to site any real news source (Glenn Beck does not count) using the word 'droves' to describe doctors' leaving this country due to attitude towards Obama or this countries' medical ethics laws.
Heck, how 'bout, 'bunches', 'lots', 'some'. Your specious claim is pure fabrication.
You are obviously very easily misled or just a lying extremist.
no one with an i.q. above 35 believed your ridiculous assertion for a minute. Go back to your FOX News forums where you can spew that kind of crap without censure.

CalSailor,
Abortion is a moral and medical private decision between a woman , her Doctor, and her maker.
The Government should never have sought to inject it's self. It is a religious issue.

Why?

Let me be clear.
Women are gaining political power. When we have enough power to begin to corrupt it, there might be a State that decides to control male anatomy, and if you live there as a male, you must surgically comply or move. Body police might arrest you for your choices not to comply.

Now, should that State law begin to expand to the Federal level, the only remaining argument would be the surgical standard males must comply to in the land.

Welcome to the plight of the USA woman today ...suckers....paybacks might very well be a males future fate.

Human life should be off limits to governments, now don't you really and truely agree?

Never say never in this Country.We have a President named Hussien, who has disclosed little history, don't we?

Mankind made the wrong choice in Eden...they chose the wrong (symbolic) tree. And ever since, it has been the blind leading the blind. Consequently, there can be no true determination and agreement of right and wrong under man. There are some absoultes in human life that apply to all. Again, a loss of truth due to our decisions. If the right tree had been chosen, we would not be going thru this type of confusion today... Confusion even in the 'mother' church, which is only a harlot that squelched the true church (but only for a short time longer). Such is why there is confusion even within that church..

There is a way that seems right unto man, but the end thereof.....

Good news, though. Scripture fortells that when the end of this present age comes, those that seek the absolutes of truth have a great and wonderful existence to look forward to - not in heaven playing harps..but on this earth of ours. The doom and gloom that man is bringing on himself, and exponentially in this current time, will be a part of the past.

To those who applaud Obama’s political ploy of calling for exploring “common ground” on abortion:

1 There is NO common ground on abortion. You either end a life or you don’t. It is either murder or it is merely a personal choice. If it is merely a personal choice, there is NO reason to minimize it and its practice into the millions provides zero justification for extension of social welfare benefits.

2 Proffering minimization of abortions may distract the unfocussed while preaching to the abortion choir, but they are nothing more than disingenuous attempts to evade the fact that the two sides are categorically irreconcilable. Those who view abortion as murder can NEVER accept a democratically determined right to commit it, much less an illegitimate judicial proclamation pulled from thin air. To ask them to do so is equivalent to asking principled Germans to accept the Nazi death camps.

3 Of course, Obama wants to defuse fervid political opposition by claiming to seek common ground, especially if he can co-opt the more left leaning inclinations of a group, like Catholics, in the process to help push “social justice” and shift the political center of this country to the left.

4 Seeking “common ground” on any of the many irreconcilable issues that are nevertheless rammed into law is a gratuitous attempt to defuse and co-opt the opposition, while seeking acceptance of the outcome under the rubric of democracy. What this view ignores is the fact that democracy itself is only a means to an end and its determinations are NOT binding on citizens. The very definition of irreconcilable is that some large group would rather break the ties that bind us than accept the opposition’s position.

So, to those who view abortion rights as settled law that deserves undisputed acceptance; along with those who suggest that advancement of the Euro-social-welfare state is an inevitability that opponents need to get on board with, get used to principled, in your face opposition, because it will NEVER go away – until this democracy does.

In Britain we only kill 455 babies a day, so we have a lot of catching up to do before we cement that 'Special Relationship' with the USA. Having said that I think between us we pretty much do our bit to reduce population expansion and consequently climate change (there has to be a link somewhere or else the nations wouldn't be in such a frenzy to slice and dice perfectly formed humans in the womb eh?)

Funny, I don't remember any vehemency from the Notre Dame Illuminati to stop priests raping little boys...perhaps their concern for children stops once they pop out of the barefoot woman's womb.
That would explain the turning of deaf ears and blind eyes to anything that does not exactly match the protesters selective doctrinal outrage.
Birth control? Hell, no. Adoption? Hell, no. Sex education? Hell, no.
Sounds like totally reasonable respect for others to me.
Catholic Extremists?
Hell, no.

soul-selling to appear that you are not a racist?

what is the sensibility of this?
are we not ALL aware that obama voted to have a baby that has been fully born be left to die without any medical assistance?

and shame on the students have been liberally diluted. is the future spineless in their plight? is this a new way to "go along" simply for popularity at the expense of integrity? if it is this is simply a sad chapter.

ND needs to be stripped of their "catholic" status since obviously it makes no difference than any other school?

The idea that one speech was going to change the minds of people is itself ludicrous and misses the point - as Obama stated, they're no such things as pro abortionists - they're people who believe the government has no right to tell people what to do with their bodies, a fundamental right - the idea that a fetus is a seperate person and has indivudual rights seperate from the mother is false, given that the mother is a sentient being and a fetus is not - what we should be doing is promoting birth control for people who want to have sex and not get pregnant, which is at the heart of the rightwings opposition, their obsession with personal behavior, the same people who claim government is too big what it in everyones bedroom - that plus the fact that once the kid is born, most right wing theocrats could care less about it's welfare - oh and let's remember who keeps pushing the sanctity of live, but has no problem with government sanctioned murder - oh the hypocrisy.

I think it is interesting that abortion tends to be the one debate where unless you are 100% on my side, you are 100% against me. I would submit that you will never reach 100%. The reality of our creation is that NO social issue will ever be 100% resolved. Yes, every abortion is a tragedy and a disaster for that child who will never be. BUT at least as many women miscarry naturally during pregnancy. Those lives, too, will never be. Do we get as riled up over that part of the issue? After all, if you are just toting up conceptions that do not result in children, then miscarriage is a huge moral issue. Or do we just shrug and say "well that's natural". Where do we draw the line? If a woman miscarried and was ambivalent about wanting the child, is she guilty of abortion? Even if she did NOTHING to encourage a miscarriage?

Why don't we all try and work for something that we can all agree on: abortion is never a positive "good", and as a people do everything we can to reduce the need for abortion. President Obama has never, to my knowledge, asserted that abortions have no moral significance, that they should be available on demand for anyone/anytime (the vote in the Indiana Senate to the contrary--do some research on WHY he voted the way he did, according to his own testimony.). But he is more willing to trust the women involved in the pregnancy to make the best decision. For her, and for the pregnancy with which she must deal.

But those of you who are not female are at best approaching this from a very different perspective than those who are female. No female can guarantee she will never become pregnant...even cloistered nuns, as the sanctity of such cloisters have occasionally been violated as well. Both men and woman need to hear each other, support one another, and work for the day when abortions are very rare. Or can the males who shout the loudest against abortion not put themselves in the woman's position even for awhile.

The old indian proverb is still true: Before you criticize me, walk a mile in my mocassins.

For those of you who wish to demonize women who have an abortion, how about demonizing the men that cause the situation that has resulted in that abortion? Last I heard, "it takes two" with only one exception that I know of. The better course of action is to reach out and support women who find themselves in a crisis situation, and help them make the best decision possible.

I admired President Obama's willingness to accept the invitation, and his calm openness to dealing with the issues that caused the upset. I admired, too, the graciousness of the vast majority of Notre Dame's graduates, students, family members and faculty/administration. Where people of good will are willing to both talk and listen, we can hope for a better future.

Pr Chris

It is pretty sad sometimes when we can't see the forest for the trees. To be open-minded should not and will not compromise ones beliefs. Everyone in America has freedom of speech. If some of of us would think before we spoke a lot of this demonazation of religion and people would cease. All religions are important not just Catholicism. We are all God"s children and it would behove us to try and be more like him. Leave the politics out of religion and vice versa. Believe it or not what is going will have happen. Don't just quote the scriptures to suit you for that time, Live the scripture and follow Jesus' guidance.

The conservative Roman Catholic Pope, who has spoken out against abortion, stem cell research, death penalty and unjust wars, has said nothing about ND's invitation to Obama.

He sees the protests for what they are, an attempt by right-wing anti-Obama American conservatives to exploit Catholics just like they exploited the Southern Baptist Evangelicals. Ask the Evangelicals how they feel now about their 'hot date' with baby Bush? They feel dirty, shamed and wish they had kept their political virginity intact.

THOU SHALL MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!
THOUGH SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES!!!!
IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HUMAN LIFE, THOU SHALL DONATE MONEY AND LABOR, FOR THERE ARE 28,000 CHILDREN STARVING TO DEATH EVERY DAY!
IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE, THOUGH SHALL HELP THE ONES WHO LIVE WITH DISABILITIES BY SUPPORTING RESEARCH OF STEM CELLS.
IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE,THOUGH SHALL BE CONCERNED ABOUT 28% MISCARRIAGES IN THE US.
IF YOU ARE AGAINST ABORTION, THOUGH SHALL CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE ONE!

With great respect for the leadership qualities of our President and the courage of those who invited him to the Notre Dame gathering, but one fundamental question -- Why does our President suggest opening discussion on one of the basic tenants of one of our core religions, when all discussion was shut off on our country's economic poliicies?

Backwards.

how do you TRUTHFULLY "honor" someone who represents and fights for the opposite of what you believe is right?

this is just another thing added to the wimp column that will become another joke when obama has officially been exposed as the fraud he is.

ElrodinTennessee,
Those women will be making that "choice." Their victims have no such choice. Has anyone ever heard of birth control?

Pardon me, Father, while I pick up my jaw from the floor. I do not understand how it is that such a learned academic as yourself, not to mention, a Catholic priest, rationalizes President Obama's fallacious arguments on the issue of abortion. The President has offered a figment of cooperation on the issue; yet he admitted in his speech yesterday that the two positions are fundamentally irreconcilable. He offers an effort to "reduce the number of abortions," and admits that the decision for a woman facing the question of abortion is burdened with deep "moral and spiritual" issues. What, though, is so "moral and spiritual" about a decision to excise a collection of unwanted developing cells from your body, UNLESS one acknowledges that those cells are actually a human person. There is nothing immoral or spiritual involved in the removal of a wart, cyst, tumor, or appendix. It can only be imbued with moral and spiritual questions if the action being taken is the termination of a life. Moreover, I agree with the President and that of Fr. Jenkins, that the presumption of good faith should be extended to those of differing opinions. But, at a certain point, after their actions have been examined and compared to their asserted positions, one should be permitted to conclude that they are not engaged in the dialogue in good faith. What I see and hear in the President's argument is, join me in accomplishing my agenda, which does not include any protection for the pre-born. Fr. Reese, what you have done, and encourage us all to do, is to set aside our common sense, turn our back on our faith, and to ignore the cries of the unborn. With apologists like you in the Catholic Church for President Obama's anti-life agenda, it is no wonder that there is so much confusion and scandal among the lay faithful. I will continue to pray that God forgives those who lead their little ones astray.

http://www.wpclinic.org/parenting/fetal-development/

Based on all medical science, a fetus cannot survive outside the womb until 30 weeks. Even then, only with extensive medical care.

So, what would you call everything before that? I call it a fetus, because it is an organism incapable of surviving on its own, and therefore does not qualify as a human being.

Yeah, 35 million babies, nice number. How many of those occurred in the first trimester, the one where no major organs are developed?

Wow. There really are a lot of posters here who totally miss the point of both Obama's speech and this article.

Catholics represent about 20% of the US population. No wonder a strict pro-life view is not held by the majority. Obama is President of the entire United States. From my vantage, it seems he is doing a good job of being inclusive of minority view points.
The question is will the pro-life camp embrace the steps we all agree on to reduce the number of abortions, or will they continue to reject all compromise.

This event is a facade. The President did exactly what he wanted - to pull the wool over the eyes of the student population. Did he mention the latest poll taken last week that showed a majority of Americans were pro-life? Did he apologize for the DHS report that stated pro-lifers were right wing extremists? The answer to both those questions are NO.

How can you expect a serious debate when the President doesn't address this? It's like having a serious debate on "Americans being cowards when it comes to race". Or not having a serious debate because the "scientific consensus" supports it. It will be either a "panel assembled by the President" to discuss it (knowing full well that the panel is comprised of people who see one side) or a "mock debate" that will produce no results.

Ah,.... maybe the anti-choice crowd will have to do something other than point and accuse. Those who would deny choice also would deny education (other than abstinence,.... which,.... ask Bristol Palin,.... clearly doesn't work) AND contraception. To those who type heartfelt "Adopt me" pleas: Who have you adopted? To what young woman in a tough situation have you offered aid and comfort to beyond your naive prayers? Aren't you the very people who voted for politicians who cut programs for poor mothers and children? Don't you think the lack of social safety nets and economic policies for the past 8 years? that have crippled the lower and middle classes have caused an increase in the numbers of people who just don't have enough to take care of another child? BLAME YOURSELVES! See I can use caps lock too.

Goofy, your words tell us much about you, your world view and your mindset.

Name-calling, pigeon-holing and snap judgments make for a polarized, ineffective world. There is nothing "radical" in the conviction that differing ideologies can, indeed, live side-by-side in mutual respect, working together toward common goals.

I found the President's speech to be well-expressed and reasonable: it's a pity that some find those to be weaknesses.

That's just great CCNL - but now tell me what all those millions of fertilized eggs that (excuse me, "babies who") don't stick to the mother's womb - or that/who detach without human intervention - shouted. (None of my ideas are suitable for posting.) Tell me why they didn't deserve to be adopted, or even to go to good mothers who wanted them. Tell me why your omnipotent, omniscient G*d isn't the worst abortionist on record. And then tell me why you don't try to increase the number of adoptions with sugar instead of with vinegar...

What is disturbing behind all these puff pieces on Obama at Notre Dame, including those by Catholics, is that we are not talking about groups can debate tax policy or new highway funding with CIVILITY. Of course we can and do.

We are talking about, and particularly when it comes to third trimester or partial birth abortions, MURDER of babies. I do not understand how a religious tenet --- that these practices go against the teachings of God --- are open to a "civil debate."

Quite frankly, I think Obama's religious credentials are as phony as the day is long. As he has yet to adopt a regular church schedule since ascending to the throne, it appears to me that his attendance at the Rev. Wright's School of Racial Animosity and Communion was simply a political move, as are most things he does. Clearly, a religious man --- which he is not --- would understand that there is no room for "civil discussions" and "differing points of view" when the issue is a strict teaching of the church, as it views God's demands on all of us.

OK, PR Chris --

Looks like we disagree fervently.

Funny how some people -- you come to mind -- might try to dismiss my arguments by associating them with people (Rush, et. al) that you probably a) don't listen to and b) don't understand and c) fear, so you demonize without debating.

Incidentally, I'm a fan of none of the three you threw down as an insult. I just am not afraid to hold researched opinions outside the mainstream media group think.

We all know that the number of abortions per year is declining in the United States. Nevertheless, I will take CC's number (one million abortions per year) at face value. But please tell us, CC, how many abortions were performed each year, before 1973?

I think we can all agree that adoption is preferrable to abortion. I would hope that you could agree that preventing unwanted pregnancies is also a worthy goal.

I adopted one infant, who was taken from his (unwed, teenage) mother by the state, due to neglect. She got pregnant again almost immediately--apparently being childless made it easier for her to go find another clueless young man.

I would suggest that everyone claiming to speak for these unborn children should adopt one before screaming for the rest of us to do so.

wmwilliams14,
The common good?
Barry Soreto's dual NPD sociopathic profile was recognized in Europe, by people who survived Hitler.
The "Common Good" of such a profile, is to elevate themselves, and use any tool to get there that they can.
No matter how large the accomplishment for this dual profile, it will never quench the lustful thurst for more and more.

Be careful what you pray for, and carefully consider what a "common good" definition is.

Obama's comments go to the heart of the debate as well as the rhetoric. The health and welfare of mothers and children requires a comprehensive view. This means that absolutes and "bumper sticker logic" play no part. Common ground exists. Women have already laid the groundwork. It is the lunatics that have muddled the issue. Their counsel is un-needed and unwanted.

Many thanks to Fr. Reese for reminding us all of the unflattering connotation of that fine old word jesuitical.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

MNpolis says "You aren't "Pro-Life" if you support the death penalty. So if you do then you are a hypocrit."

The difference is innocent lives versus criminal lives. Given that, I'm not convinced the death penalty is a good thing.

He conquered what,or who?!
It appears you are brainwashed also!!!!!
I rest my case!!!!!!!!!!

obama wants fair, obama doesn’t know fair he has been on government dole all his life. There is NO common ground obama here. ----
There isn’t a darn thing that is FAIR with obama , schummmmmmmmer, dodd, frank, reid, peloski, waxman, kerry, kennedy and the DEMOCRATS RAPING the middle class hardworking TAXPAyers with ARRA(America Rape and Reaping ACT).
We have had all the MARXIST FAIR we can stand.----
I worked for a fertilizer company once that the owner during Jimmy Carter high inflation years kept telling the agronomist that our prices were FAIR. I kept asking in meeting when you 15% higher then the competition FAIR to who Jerry it isn’t the FARMERS. After 3 months of this bs, I left and went to work for companies that competed and 2 years later the FAIR PRICED Jerry went bankrupt.-----
ARRA stole thats right it was a theft of taxpayers money to give to obama and his government dole buddies of taxpayers money.
We have to stop this madman and his thugs before they destroy all the middle class hardworking taxpayers.-----
We will throw the thugs out in 2010 and the head thug out in 2012 and he can take his lying foney FAIR with him.-----
When I hear FAIR I know I better keep my backside covered because there is a thug that is a dirty fighter and speaks with fork tongue.

Making something illegal does not eliminate it from happening. People with a strong sense of conscience and love for those not yet born, should commit passion to action and reduce the circumstances in which abortion becomes an option.

There are many ways in which life happens or doesn't happen-- much of which we effect but most of which is beyond our control. For me, there is no stark difference between "choice" and "life", but rather gradations of a thousand shades about what happens when we choose to try for or prevent a new life. And in either case, it is always very personal and can be tremendously painful; more than rhetoric, we need compassion.

With all due respect, Rev. Reese, President Obama was looking down at--and talking down to--anyone who opposes abortion. Head perpetually upturned in arrogance, President Obama posed the schizoid, nonsensical proposition that we should find common ground on abortion only to discover ultimately that the two positions are irreconcilable. Well, duh!!!! With abortion a child dies; without it there is life. The presence of a few token, uber-liberal Jesuits aside, Georgetown has long been secular, or as the Preppie Handbook described it years ago, "used to be Catholic." Otherwise, how do you justify not a peep of protest when Mr. Obama, who after all was a guest at Georgetown, wanted the IHS to be covered during his speech there. What Mr. Obama is saying is, discuss it all you want, but in the end, abortion lives. Please save your sophistry for the classroom. At some point, Catholics need to take a stand. Georgetown and Notre Dame fell sold out principle for publicity.

Neelywf -- I appreciate the restraint and polite tone of your rebuttal to CC. I figure we disagree vehemently, but I respect how you made your point. It was much better handled than CB from Hamburg, who resorted to being snide.

Note to CB, you're right. Dead babies do NOT shout. Likely because they're DEAD. Miss the point much?

Funny, too, CB, I don't notice you actually able to dispute the numbers offered by CC. Consider doing research rather than offering your own screech.

This whole mainstream media rush to become apologists for our current dictator really bothers me. And the blog's author's position exemplifies what I find objectionable.

The fact is, Obama didn't challenge graduating students at a university whose faith sees abortion as murder. He couldn't have insulted Catholicism more if he had slapped everyone in the face with a rotting fetus.

Why is it that only people who disagree with Obama and his sycophants should be more open-minded and tolerant? What happened to Obama trying to respect Catholicism, to respect Christianity, to respect traditional American values?

It's extremely frustrating to see the disregard he holds for America, for Catholicism, for Christianity, for native Americans and for America's continued prowess. And the media and the people who are duped by the media just let him get away with it.

Goofy:

but I resent the Obama sycophants like this author who, through some sort of fallacious gestalt, believe that people as radical, as anti-Christian, as anti-Catholic and anti-American as Obama are actually reaching out to others.

Those are some pretty sweeping sentiments concerning the President. Please cite your sources. (Other than Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, that is)

Pr Chris

You aren't "Pro-Life" if you support the death penalty. So if you do then you are a hypocrit.

If the pro-life wants to reduce the number of abortions, there are ways that are safe, legal, and obvious. It's time to move forward.

Actually, I believe in a woman's right to choose, but I resent the Obama sycophants like this author who, through some sort of fallacious gestalt, believe that people as radical, as anti-Christian, as anti-Catholic and anti-American as Obama are actually reaching out to others.

Obama is out for one thing and one thing only, and that is unconstitutional coalescing of power in his -- and only his -- hands. He doesn't listen to those of us who see through him, and neither do people like the author of this blog or the people behind it at the Post.

Posted by: GoofyPlatypus | May 18, 2009 11:49 AM
-----------------------------------
So you think that President Obama should listen to people that that think so little of him. Why on earth would he want to do that? The president is looking for people who have opposing views that are willing to work together for the common good. Your views aren't opposing they are just inflammatory.

If the President were anti-semitic, Father Reese would not be praising him. Father Reese would be praising the protestors.

If the President were passing laws permitting the arrest, not to mention the killing, of gays and lesbians, Father Reese would not be praising him. Father Reese would be praising the protestors.

If the President was permitting federal funds to use Jesuits for medical experiments, Father Reese would not be praising him. Father Reese would be praising the protestors.

Father Reese's praise of the President betrays his undervaluation of the lives of unborn Americans.

Obama's comments were all very nice in theory. Unfortunately, they were also classic political doublespeak.

Notre Dame: "Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It's a way of life that always has been the Notre Dame tradition."
2008 Planned Parenthood Action Fund conference: "On this fundamental issue, I will not yield."

ND: "I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away."
2008 PPFA: "[C]ulture wars are so nineties."

ND: He said he favored "a sensible conscience clause" that would give anti-abortion health care providers the right to refuse to perform the procedure.
2009: Obama overturned conscience regulations set up by Health and Human Services under Bush.

ND: [H]e said those on each side of the debate "can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make."
2008 PPFA: Ridiculed Justice Kennedy's acknowledgement of post-abortion regret in the Gonzales v Carhart decision (which upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion.)

ND: "So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term."
During presidential campaign: Told pro-abortion group RH Reality Check that he opposes government funding for pregnancy resource centers, which (funny enough) provide care and support for women who do carry their child to term.

From the above comments, I guess that 'same sex marriage' wasn't addressed by Obama this time out.

Had it been, the comments would be less intense vis-a-vis abortion.

A psychiatrist I knew well for over 30 years [he is now deceased] once told me that IF I had been born into a ghetto, that I would act, think and advocate as one from the ghetto, rather than I now do.

Ghetto's vary from the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw in the late 1930s & early 40s, to those perhaps in New Orleans. In the former, education, or a trade was critical, whereas in the later, it obviously wasn't. In the former, property ownership was precluded, as was customary in Europe for Jews, who thus valued education and/or a trade as an indicia of identification and this, it seems, was overall absent in New Orleans.

But regardless of which Ghetto one speaks of, who we are as individuals is often pre-determined largely by our families and their values.

And values usually do not get transmitted effectively in ghetto areas without the presence of a strong faith, to override the chaos of daily strife.

So as to abortions and same sex marriage, at least the later will likely minimize the former, for whatever that may be worth.

Sounds like the American people are full of fear. It's too bad.

Edward Mangan
Beijing, China

CC,
You're missing a key piece of data: how many illegal abortions were performed before Roe. More importantly, how many illegal abortions would be performed if abortion were NOW made illegal?

Are you willing to convict women who perform abortions with first degree murder?

What astounds me -- but shouldn't, I guess, given the political ideologies of so-called "reporters" and their indifference to the opinions of those who hold traditional values -- is how, of all the people in the world the Post and its anti-Catholic bigoted writers could find to quote, they focused on those alleged Catholics who support Obama.

Now I understand the leftist apologist who authored this piece alleges to be a practicing Catholic, but why, I ask, does the media like the Post not provide a forum wherein traditional voices might be heard?

Actually, I believe in a woman's right to choose, but I resent the Obama sycophants like this author who, through some sort of fallacious gestalt, believe that people as radical, as anti-Christian, as anti-Catholic and anti-American as Obama are actually reaching out to others.

Obama is out for one thing and one thing only, and that is unconstitutional coalescing of power in his -- and only his -- hands. He doesn't listen to those of us who see through him, and neither do people like the author of this blog or the people behind it at the Post.

As I read the article and than the comments I became confused as to how the article had anything to do with CCs comment. This is a prime example of why it is so hard for the United States to move past old practices and start anew.

I am not sure where CC obtained the numbers; the main issue I derived from the article is that we as a country, as the "human race", need to work together on resolving all issues - not just abortion. We need to put aside personal biases (agendas) and look at how we as a country can make a change without insulting, belittling, or creating fear to support our position.

CC, I respect your view on abortion, not sure it should have been voiced here as it does not lend any value to the article. However, since you managed to get a rise out of two of us you've made your point.

"Simply as an intermediate strategy pro-life people should join with Obama in doing everything possible to reduce the number of abortions. Not to do so is to put politics above the life of the unborn."

Agreed, but that still leaves those babies that are aborted. Doing only what Obama asks doesn't help them. And politics definitely trumps their little lives. I'm concerned that this 'intermediate strategy' is an end game.

I am deeply ashamed of the 60+ Catholic bishops who chose the rhetoric of demonization to critique Notre Dame U. They reveal once and for all the mediocrity many Catholics have long suspected them of. Many of us also suspect them to beare also careerists who speak for Roman consumption. As far as I know Obama has neither procured nor performed an abortion. Public policy objectives are reached by multiple routes. Opposition to Roe v. Wade is not doctrine. Regarding abortion as a moral evil is.

CDC data for the number of abortions performed/yr, 1970-2004, Table 2:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm#fig1

Roe vs. Wade decision was given in 1973.

2008-1973 = 35

35 x 1,000,000 abortions per year on average = 35,000,000 dead babies

CC,

I don't think dead babies do much shouting, but you certainly know how to lock those caps. It doesn't make for a very persuasive arguement but perhaps you have mistaken the Washington Post's forum for a rabble rousing platform for your screech.
Where did you get the number from by the way? Make it up or just divide the world population by a percentage and factor in a hundred years?
I'm not a great believer in the "no- shouting-down-a-speaker-as-it-denies- freedom-of-speech" argument. But all the same: let em yell their slogans and let them be kindly escorted to the exit.

CB from Hamburg

Again, what 35 million aborted babies were shouting during BO's speech:

THOU SHALL NOT KILL!!!

ADOPT ME!!!