President Obama Deserved Respect, Not Applause

Nixon deserved the Impeachment.

Bush deserves to be charge and tried.

Obama, well I guess in addition to respect and the applauses, he deserves the chance he earned and been given to him.

Kert:

You said:

There is already many private and public organizations that will help a woman keep or adopt a child. There is very little more than can be done to discourage abortion outside of the law.

I think there is a LOT that can be done within the law to discourage abortions. Much hasn't really been tried:

1. Universal sex education for teens that stresses abstinance outside of marriage (and especially until adulthood; 16 year old single mothers is a total disaster) AND medically correct information on sexuality so teens can take control over their own futures, including information on birth control methods, such as condoms and birth control is woefully lacking for many teens. Texas, for example, has the highest percentage of teens receiving "abstinance only" sex ed, and has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the country. There is a corollation! Many teen pregnancies are because the woman does not know how to prevent pregnancy. Medically correct sex education for ALL teens as a part of teen sex education would greatly cut down the number of unwanted pregnancies among these groups.

2. Many, some would say, nearly half, of all abortions are sought because of economic pressures on the woman: She simply cannot care for the addtional child. Often such an abortion is due to the failure of birth control. Sometimes, no birth control was used, because of beliefs, and the effort to "time" sexual relationships didn't add up (or added up too well, depending on your point of view). Working to make sure birth control is as effective as possible would cut down the numbers of unwanted pregnancy. (Requiring all medical insurance to cover birth control is a step in the right direction...come to think of it, medical insurance for ALL citizens would also help cut down on pregnancies as well. Some medical insurance covers Viagra (it is a "medical issue" if the male needs Viagra, according to some insurance executives, but a woman wanting/needing birth control is a "lifestyle issue"...And women sometimes cannot afford birth control, especially when finding money for food is an issue.)

3. The Catholic church, at the same time that it does not permit abortion, also does not permit birth control. This means complete abstinance outside of marriage, and accepting however many children are born within marriage. Many Catholic families have found that impossible, as shown by the statistics that show that Catholics use birth control about as frequently as non-Catholics. Confessing birth control is a whole lot better than confessing abortion. Maybe the Catholic Church needs to have an in-depth discussion
about all forms of sexuality among people (including abstinance, chastity, celibacy, homosexuality) with the goal of creating realistic expectations for ALL Catholics. So far, the Church's positions, as experienced by too many Catholics, are unrealistic and impossible to live by. It would be helpful to bring married couples, singles of both sexes and people from the GLBT into the dialogue. It's been more than 50 years since the last discussion of this topic. Its way past time.

4. Other times aboritons are sought because the woman is threatened by the male involved not to have the child (yes, that DOES happen. Any pastoral counselor or crisis counselor knows this). Women who desperately do not want a child, for economic reasons or because the man threatens her are, at the same time, sometimes the result of domestic rape. And yet, many jurisdictions (or judges) don't accept that women are sometimes, in disfunctional marriages, forced to have sex with the spouse. When pregnancy results, the woman seeks an abortion. How would you deal with this? How would you prevent unwanted pregnancies?

There are many steps we could take that would prevent many pregnancies; we haven't even started in some areas.

Kert: The other assertion that you make is that President Obama has never seen an abortion that he doesn't support. I think that this is a gross overstatement. If you are relying on his vote in Illinois, you ought to do research. While "late term abortion" was the topic, the prohibition on these abortions was already on the books in Illinois, and the bill in question would have accomplished more. It was a "gotcha" vote, and so then Senator Obama voted "present" for those reasons.

His reversal of the Bush policy of funding for overseas groups returns to the policies we have had previous to President Bush: No direct funding for abortions, but supporting other actions of groups that provide comprehensive family planning information, including information on where they might otherwise get abortions. The restrictions, by limiting the only family planning information available overseas, has contributed to an increase of unwanted pregnancies and maternal deaths in third world countries. This is an improvement?

I believe that what you heard from President Obama at Notre Dame is more closely where he is at than the image that he supports abortion under every circumstance. Even if you don't believe me, why not assume goodwill on his part and work to reduce abortions in every way possible.

Criminalizing abortion is not the answer. And how far are you willing to go to require pregnant women to give birth? Lock them up until they deliver? That's effectively the Irish model of decades ago, and evidence today shows that a lot of harm came to the young women, to some of the children who were adopted out, and that shame was the predominant reality for many involved.

There are many things that can be done to ensure all children are wanted...but absolute ending of abortions are never going to be the reality of this world.

Pr Chris

Kert1 writes "...I'm pretty sure God would find it offensive. I assure you that God does not abort children in their mother's womb. The very thought is repulsive. We live in a fallen world. People die of natural causes all the time and it surely is not God's doing... I will guarentee that God welcomes all aborted children by either natural or unatural causes."

I respectfully submit that your views appear lacking in rationality, and are inconsistent and illogical. My impression is that you practice the most spiritually hollow form of religion, filled with self-aggrandizement and contempt for reason and learning.

Firstly, I can accept that you find my statements offensive (they may well have been too blunt and inartful), and you have every right to respond. But even if you believe in God, by what authority do you claim to speak for your God and claim to know his feelings? Is this not the very definition of blasphemy, if such a crime exists? Your conflation of your own opinions with that of an almighty deity is a troubling indication of your state of mind.

Further, you are claiming that God, despite being omnipotent by definition, is somehow not responsible for the natural world or naturally ocurring events. That view appears beyond hypocracy and in the realm of the lunacy. Even if God does not interact in the direct causation of natural events, by your own belief, He must have had a hand in creating natural systems, and therefore, must have played a determinative role in natural processes.

I do not see how you can have it both ways, belief in an omnipresent and omnipotent God, but one that is not reponsible or involved in any natural realities that you dislike or find immoral.

In fact, I find your religious beliefs quite disturbing and dangerous, precisely because you have no consistent factual or moral conception of the world, and are thus able to use faith and belief to dispose yourself (and God) for any personal responsibility for your actions. History shows that the ugliest forms of human behavior are predicated on exactly this kind of false religion.

I further submit that true spirituality involves a great deal more introspection and thought about the moral dilemmas we face in view of the facts. We all have to make difficult choices that affect us and others around us. The worst choices come when we ignore the facts known to us and apply irrational thinking to maintain a comfortable zone of ignorance around us. You can do better than that Kert1.

Nixon's old ex-con neochristian towing the party line. I'd like to see your column about the Catholic "sanctity of life" in Irish Reform Schools.

Mr. Colson,

I would certainly have far greater respect and belief in your stance if you believed in uplifting and supporting life in all cases, not just 'innocent' life. You support war, supported going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and in all cases waging war against 'terrorists', support the death penalty, and other aspects of the 'culture of death' that is the shadow side of Evangelical belief. You are an Old Testament Christian, as many are, and in my view that is not a Jesus Christ Christian. One cannot give their heart to the genuine Teachings of Jesus while cheering on our troops in pre-emptive warfare against the "infidels".

I hate hypocricy of belief. I am sure that you are comfortable with your beliefs, but to me it is contrary to true Christian Teaching. I have greater respect for the Catholic Church for this reason. They at least more purely follow the Teachings of Jesus, in my small view.

And the audience at Notre Dame that applauded may well have better followed the lead of Jesus as well by applauding. It certainly makes more sense to me than applauding G W Bush. He was a lover of war as solution to opposition, as was his dark half Cheney.

You may continue to applaud them though. I am sure that it fits better for your tastes.

Hello Kert1,

You take positions, like other religious believers, that are based on theoretical assumptions that have no proven basis to affirm their validity, yet you hold to them as if they are true. Do not get me wrong, I am not negating that they or some of them may be true or based on what is true. But there is nothing but a belief that assumes a lot to take that stance on.

I am also a believer in 'God', though my perception of that Creator is certainly markedly different than yours. Even if they have been very similar at times.

There is neither the provability of the existence of soul or ensoulment, or the discounting of the possibility that if soul exists it does not also exist for all life formed by the Creator of Soul. I personally believe in soul and ensoulment of spirit in the physical form, but what, but elitist religious dogma, would make sense that any Life have Soul?

AgentG had an interesting if not disturbing point about God being an abortionist. That is not how I may think of it, but on the other hand fertilized ova fail to secure to the uterine wall regularly. They also regularly fail to stabilize in the uterus and so are 'aborted'. Miscarriage is also common, very sadly for many women that want to be pregnant. My mother lost 4 fetuses to miscarriage and stillbirth. Do we blame the humans for this, as you seem to attempt to do in your statement: "We live in a fallen world. People die of natural causes all the time and it surely is not God's doing."

God invented death and the parameters of the "fallen world", not Adam and Eve, even if you choose to believe in them and the Fall from the Garden. I do not. This world IS dualistic and life comes into it and life goes out of it naturally and constantly. It is the design of the place. And we, incarnate and ensouled, will come in and go out in infinite ways.

If God is not responsible for the miscarriage or failed attachment of the ovum to the uterus and it really is the womans' fault, (or fallen humanities') then what makes the difference between miscarriage and abortion but conscious choice?

What did the Republicans ever do about abortion other than saying they were against it. What did Christ think about those who said they would but never did, namely those not unlike the Republicans, the Bush years, nothing, the Reagan years, nothing, again the Bush years very little, next to nothing, should we say hippocrates, I think we should.

"President Obama Deserved Respect, Not Applause"

And you, Mr. Colson, deserve neither.

AgentG,
I think Mr. Colson might be a little busy, so I will clarify.

I don't think it fringe to see Obama as pro-abortion. He has supported and continues to support any abortion for any reason, even up to minutes after birth. He has even supported abortion after birth. There is no President who has support abortion so much. He is for abortion and that is what pro-abortion means. His actions and words are clear.

His talk of limiting abortion is a little hopeful but it is also the same thing many have said before. Besides his policy only opens the door for abortion to anyone for free. How does that reduce abortion? Maybe you can explain this to me. There is already many private and public organizations that will help a woman keep or adopt a child. There is very little more than can be done to discourage abortion outside of the law.

I don't think pro-life is meaningless. I think the position has been quite clear. Pro-life means a person is for for protecting human life from creation to natural death. Obviously human life is different from other life in that we do have a soul. Obviously pro-lifers are not particularly intested in ants or bacteria or other types of life. What you say is also somewhat true about ensoulment, but it is hard to fit that in a label.

I would be very careful how you speak of God. Your arguement is not very well thought out and I'm pretty sure God would find it offensive. I assure you that God does not abort children in their mother's womb. The very thought is repulsive. We live in a fallen world. People die of natural causes all the time and it surely is not God's doing. Miscarriages happen the same as cancer or heart attacks. I will guarentee that God welcomes all aborted children by either natural or unatural causes.

Did you ever consider that in illogically asserting a "pro-abortion" label, that you are the lunatic fringe? You apparently were not listening when President Obama discussed many ways we could reduce the number of abortions through sound, democratically acceptable policies.

The designation pro-life is also morally and scientifically meaningless. The issue is not about life, but about ensoulment, which is a religious doctrine. If you believe in ensoulment at the moment of conception, and you believe in God, then you must also believe that God is the greatest abortioninst ever, because a vast fraction of fertilized eggs are naturally aborted. Thus it is God who also destroys life in all natural processes, and thus God must not be pro-life.

I respectfully request clarification by you on these points.