Tough Questions ... New Answers

I have the link to the piece below for those that would like to see the piece and the link to the Matthew 25 website. Not looking for a fight on this topic, just some common sense that after 40 years we need a change in how to look at abortion.

Read ... if you want additional information give me a shout.




HomeFacts about Abortion
What Obama Will Do
Resources Matthew 25 NetworkDonate
Can you be pro-life and support Senator Obama? The answer - upon even a moment's reflection - is "unequivocally yes."

Barack Obama's life has been one dedicated in service to the needs of others.

We are all called to build a culture of life - but there's more to it than just hoping that the next Supreme Court justice somehow deals with Roe v. Wade. A bad economy is threatening to human life. Women facing the moral tragedy of abortion - are facing it, now, today - and they need a supportive community and tangible help, not condemnation.

As Ronald Reagan's legal counsel and as a dean and professor at Catholic University and Notre Dame, I have worked to put the law on the side of life where it belongs.

But after 35 years, a new approach is needed. Too many unborn lives are being lost as we wait for judges to get it right. Barack Obama's strengthening of support for prenatal care, health care, maternity leave, and adoption will make the difference. Studies confirm it.

We are but a few weeks away from a new beginning in America.

I am inspired by what Senator Obama calls "the promise of America -- the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation in the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper. That's the promise we need to keep."

It is because of the hope of this promise, that I have written Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question About Barack Obama. While especially aimed at Catholic citizens, the book and the material here are devoted to opening every heart and mind to the prospect of transcending the partisanship on these difficult issues.

That is the change we need right now. And it is within our grasp.

Thank you for visiting this site and we look forward to being in touch,

Douglas W. Kmiec

Listen to Douglas Kmiec's radio ad!
Buy Douglas Kmiec's new book, Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question About Barack Obama
Douglas W. Kmiec holds the endowed chair in Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University. Prior to that, he was dean and St. Thomas More Professor of Law at Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. He also served as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He is author of the new book, Can A Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question About Barack Obama.

There are about 48,589,993 people I'd love to send this to, but can't due to abortions since 1973.

So Doug Kmiec is the voice of reason now-a-days?

I'll fight about it, in that kinda mood...

It frustrates me to no end that pro-lifers think they somehow have exclusive rights to being anti-abortion. It's a vapid viewpoint whereby there can be no cooperation because the pro-life position is one of vast judeo-christian propaganda, lies and hate. They dont realize that it's possible for someone pro-choice to be anti-abortion, and they feel that the only way they will be satisfied is a complete reversal of Roe v Wade.

The pro-lifers are asking the impossible and they dont realize it...

Call me crazy, but that's just a little insulting to Catholics. Whoever is elected will not, or at least should not, have a major stake in abortion laws. To insinuate that I'm basing my entire vote on whether or not a candidate is pro-life is wrong.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:There are about 48,589,993 people I'd love to send this to, but can't due to abortions since 1973.

Awesome!!!!!!

pez wrote:I'll fight about it, in that kinda mood...

It frustrates me to no end that pro-lifers think they somehow have exclusive rights to being anti-abortion. It's a vapid viewpoint whereby there can be no cooperation because the pro-life position is one of vast judeo-christian propaganda, lies and hate. They dont realize that it's possible for someone pro-choice to be anti-abortion, and they feel that the only way they will be satisfied is a complete reversal of Roe v Wade.

The pro-lifers are asking the impossible and they dont realize it...

Pro-lifers see black & white.
Others (so many new terms) like to split hairs.

pez wrote:I'll fight about it, in that kinda mood...

It frustrates me to no end that pro-lifers think they somehow have exclusive rights to being anti-abortion. It's a vapid viewpoint whereby there can be no cooperation because the pro-life position is one of vast judeo-christian propaganda, lies and hate. They dont realize that it's possible for someone pro-choice to be anti-abortion, and they feel that the only way they will be satisfied is a complete reversal of Roe v Wade.

The pro-lifers are asking the impossible and they dont realize it...

You know something, it used to be either pro-life or pro-choice. I have always thought it was a pretty simple concept until I joined this forum and heard 15 other terms, "anti-abortion", "pro-abortion", "pro-illegal abortion", and on and on. By my definition, if you think it should be illegal to have an abortion just because you decided to have unprotected sex and whoops you got pregnant, then you're pro-life. All the gray areas, i.e. rape or mother's life at stake, can be debated.

pez wrote:I'll fight about it, in that kinda mood...

Oh Oh is this a Chantix moment Pez?

Henry Morgentaler received the order of Canada this year.
A few Catholic priests returned theirs in protest. It's ironic that they're angry about it and they (meaning the church, not all catholics) cover up abuse of young boys like there is no tomorrow. I guess those boys lives are not that important, you don't see people protesting for them.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/07/01/morgentaler-order.html

Markwes wrote:

pez wrote:I'll fight about it, in that kinda mood...

It frustrates me to no end that pro-lifers think they somehow have exclusive rights to being anti-abortion. It's a vapid viewpoint whereby there can be no cooperation because the pro-life position is one of vast judeo-christian propaganda, lies and hate. They dont realize that it's possible for someone pro-choice to be anti-abortion, and they feel that the only way they will be satisfied is a complete reversal of Roe v Wade.

The pro-lifers are asking the impossible and they dont realize it...

You know something, it used to be either pro-life or pro-choice. I have always thought it was a pretty simple concept until I joined this forum and heard 15 other terms, "anti-abortion", "pro-abortion", "pro-illegal abortion", and on and on. By my definition, if you think it should be illegal to have an abortion just because you decided to have unprotected sex and whoops you got pregnant, then you're pro-life. All the gray areas, i.e. rape or mother's life at stake, can be debated.

You and I agree 100%... It's hard for me not to get defensive when some of the pro-life set are bent on calling me a babykiller for thinking it should be legal to not let my wife die, or abort the baby of the man who raped her...

Markwes wrote:Call me crazy, but that's just a little insulting to Catholics. Whoever is elected will not, or at least should not, have a major stake in abortion laws. To insinuate that I'm basing my entire vote on whether or not a candidate is pro-life is wrong.

Markwes, not picking on you but well... you dropped a trifecta of bait. A nod to your comment "basing... entirely". Why is the Catholic church - through it's own media outlets so definite in it's position against a presidential candidate when that candidate will not have any significant ability to affect the Supreme court ruling? And even if a US President could succeed at overturning Roe v. Wade would that make a significant and comprehensive impact on the issue of Abortion?

"Obama's position on abortion is not perfect; it's exactly contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. The candidate Kmiec is touting as pro-life is the most extreme pro-abortion presidential nominee in the history of American politics."

...

The "Pro-Life Pro-Obama" Web site confirms what I wrote yesterday: Doug Kmiec has become the Catholic outreach of the Obama campaign. The first thing you notice when the site opens is a prominent "Welcome from Doug Kmiec."

Kmiec's message is the one we have been hearing from Obama's Catholics since the beginning of the campaign -- that overturning Roe v. Wade is not an effective way to reduce abortions:

But after 35 years, a new approach is needed. Too many unborn lives are being lost as we wait for judges to get it right. Barack Obama's strengthening of support for prenatal care, health care, maternity leave, and adoption will make the difference. Studies confirm it.

ref: http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29817

moondrop wrote:

pez wrote:I'll fight about it, in that kinda mood...

It frustrates me to no end that pro-lifers think they somehow have exclusive rights to being anti-abortion. It's a vapid viewpoint whereby there can be no cooperation because the pro-life position is one of vast judeo-christian propaganda, lies and hate. They dont realize that it's possible for someone pro-choice to be anti-abortion, and they feel that the only way they will be satisfied is a complete reversal of Roe v Wade.

The pro-lifers are asking the impossible and they dont realize it...

Pro-lifers see black & white.
Others (so many new terms) like to split hairs.

I dont agree, I'm pro-life actually, In the sense that I wish to promote life. At least my position is consistent... you are anti-abortion, even in cases where the health of the Mother is at stake, on the grounds that God didnt intend us to kill anyone innocent... yet at the same time you are pro-war, knowing full well that innocents will die along the way...

That's complete and utter hypocrisy... it's the definition of hypocrisy, and our society really has no place for it.

Looks like Bman got the fight he wasn't looking for.

Markwes wrote:All the gray areas, i.e. rape or mother's life at stake, can be debated.

A point of reference to "all the new terms" in that I attempted to read this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm (seriously, too long to post)

I think there's a fair amount of "language compression" that is acceptable to make discussion of the topic a bit easier.

LTRT wrote:Looks like Bman got the fight he wasn't looking for.

Markwes wrote:Call me crazy, but that's just a little insulting to Catholics. Whoever is elected will not, or at least should not, have a major stake in abortion laws. To insinuate that I'm basing my entire vote on whether or not a candidate is pro-life is wrong.

I disagree with that assumption that the next leader will have no major stake in abortion laws. Three Supreme Court Justices are expected to retire in the next term ... all three liberal. The Court will either stay neutral if Obama is elected or swing radically to the right if McCain is elected. McCain said he would nominate Scalia like justices.

These are facts.


LTRT I was not looking for a fight ... I just wanted people on this board to see how Pro-life people can in fact support Senator Barack Obama.

Something I should clear up just in case there's any doubt...my personal standpoint on some of the gray areas that Markwes brought up are this...IF the mother's life is at stake, abortion is okay. IF a person is raped and consequently becomes pregnant, I don't think abortion is okay. To me (IMHO), the baby is still a life that is growing inside the mother to be. Bman recently asked me if one of my daughters was raped would I support their decision to get an abortion. First off, I pray to God that doesn't happen, but IF it does, I would not support an abortion decision. Doesn't mean I wouldn't still love my daughter(s) if they went ahead and did that, but I would not support the decision.

And Meta, none of the Catholic Churches I've been to tell us who to vote for. That would jeopardize their tax-exemption status. We are praying for a peaceful end to abortion at our church. I'm not saying it's never happened whatsoever, but I can't think of any time that that has happened.

And like I also told Bman on the night of the first presidential debate...Abortion alone is not the end all be all issue for me. If one candidate claims to be Pro-Life and says he's going to make it his (or her) priority to make abortion illegal, but everything else is bad about the candidate (economic policies, foreign policies, etc.)...then for the good of the country, I will vote for the other candidate as long as that candidate's policies (IMHO) are better than the Pro-Life candidate's potential policies.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:And Meta, none of the Catholic Churches I've been to tell us who to vote for. That would jeopardize their tax-exemption status. We are praying for a peaceful end to abortion at our church. I'm not saying it's never happened whatsoever, but I can't think of any time that that has happened.

Well, I can understand that. Pat Robertson had to surrender the tassels when he ran, James Dobson has his politically motivated sibling ministry that is not tax-exempt, etc. What I'm referring to is the non-catholic church controlled media outlets, like the first one link I posted.

meta4 wrote:Markwes, not picking on you but well... you dropped a trifecta of bait. A nod to your comment "basing... entirely". Why is the Catholic church - through it's own media outlets so definite in it's position against a presidential candidate when that candidate will not have any significant ability to affect the Supreme court ruling? And even if a US President could succeed at overturning Roe v. Wade would that make a significant and comprehensive impact on the issue of Abortion?

"Obama's position on abortion is not perfect; it's exactly contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. The candidate Kmiec is touting as pro-life is the most extreme pro-abortion presidential nominee in the history of American politics."

...

The "Pro-Life Pro-Obama" Web site confirms what I wrote yesterday: Doug Kmiec has become the Catholic outreach of the Obama campaign. The first thing you notice when the site opens is a prominent "Welcome from Doug Kmiec."

Kmiec's message is the one we have been hearing from Obama's Catholics since the beginning of the campaign -- that overturning Roe v. Wade is not an effective way to reduce abortions:

But after 35 years, a new approach is needed. Too many unborn lives are being lost as we wait for judges to get it right. Barack Obama's strengthening of support for prenatal care, health care, maternity leave, and adoption will make the difference. Studies confirm it.

ref: http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29817

The link that you provided was a reactionary response to Mr. Kmiec. Since he decided to address Catholics, a Catholic author for this organization decided to respond. I don't see that as proving any definite position. And I'm not saying a candidate's position on abortion is completely negligent. I just didn't see the need to single out Catholics. It's like he's saying "I'm one of them, so they will listen to me".

meta4 wrote:
Well, I can understand that. Pat Robertson had to surrender the tassels when he ran, James Dobson has his politically motivated sibling ministry that is not tax-exempt, etc. What I'm referring to is the non-catholic church controlled media outlets, like the first one link I posted.

You mean like this:

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29500

SavoyTruffle wrote:

meta4 wrote:
Well, I can understand that. Pat Robertson had to surrender the tassels when he ran, James Dobson has his politically motivated sibling ministry that is not tax-exempt, etc. What I'm referring to is the non-catholic church controlled media outlets, like the first one link I posted.

You mean like this:

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29500

Talk about a verbal gunslinger. A spot on example.

meta4 wrote:Talk about a verbal gunslinger.

Actually, I was referring to the constant assaults on character and intelligence of other posters that have been going on nonstop around here lately. Perhaps you can think of some instances of that happening?

SavoyTruffle wrote:

meta4 wrote:Talk about a verbal gunslinger.

Actually, I was referring to the constant assaults on character and intelligence of other posters that have been going on nonstop around here lately. Perhaps you can think of some instances of that happening?

Oh I got your drift. The article you posted was exactly what I was looking for in an example of endorsement or non-endorsement of a candidate for the audience of Catholics based on the candidates support of issues which they may or may not have control in the elected office.

I lost track of what you guys were talking about...

I thought this was an interesting quote, after Id read it a couple times to figure it out:

“A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position."

As far as verbal jabs go, I called meta a fag because he deserved it... and his board smack powers are greater than mine... I am a little bigger than he is tho, so the next time we have a beer together I'm gonna punch him in the munt.

I am not sure who else I may have jabbed... I think I called someone a sorry bastard in the FF smack thread... but neither of those were really meant personally.