Could The Church Have Stopped It?

[inunionwithrome]

So, I guess electing a black leader just to have a black leader and prove that the Civil Rights movement did work does not always leave a good option. There are even people of his own race who do not approve. I did not vote for him. Obama is young and inexperienced. And boy does it show! :0

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='inunionwithrome' post='1870926' date='May 19 2009, 01:29 PM']Obama is young and inexperienced. And boy does it show! :0[/quote]

How so, specifically?

[Sirklawd]

Dont fool yourself for a second. There is no middle ground on abortion for him.

Here is the transcript from the IL Senate Judiciary Committee here, March 28, 2001. Where he was the only one amongst democrats, republicans, lifers, choices, whatever - THE ONLY ONE - to voice in opposition to the born-alive infant protection act. Here's what he said:

[quote name='Senator Obama'][b]Obama[/b]: "...Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced, where the -- the fetus or child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?[/quote]

key points:
1. "or a child, as some might call it"
2. "temporarily alive" Tell me, who [b]ISNT[/b] temporarily alive???

The response:
[quote name='Senator O'Malley']O'Malley:"Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the -- the way children are treated following their birth under these circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States"[/quote]

[quote name='Senator Obama'][b]Obama[/b]: "...whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protect by the equal protection clause or the other elements of the constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child (and now he uses that term), a nine-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute..."[/quote]

See, he gets it perfectly. It's just that a born human being is not a child unless it it 9 months old, and [i]wanted[/i]. He continues:

[quote name='Senator Obama'][b]Obama[/b]: "...the second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, [i]however way you want to describe it[/i]. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality..."[/quote]

Key points:
1. fetus/child whatever you want to call it, if the mother doesnt want it, kill it.
2. according to the constitution, you are not allowed to give medical attention to someone until after they are viable...you know, when they are healthy and not about to die and generally don't need medical attention

The fact that these sorts of thoughts sit comfortably in his mind is more than enough reason not to honor him. It's also scary. He wants a middle ground? There's no middle ground with insanity. How do you even communicate with someone who contorted his brain so much that thoughts like his make sense.

Oh ya, and remember how he was like "i didn't vote on that bill because it didn't have a clause that allowed for the health of the mother?" Now you also know he was lying.

Here's the full transcript:
[url="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf"]http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf[/url]

[MissyP89]

I don't know, guys. Perhaps it's just my idealism talking, but I'm not going to give up hope. If Obama says he's going to have a conscience clause, I'm going to pray he holds true to his word.

"...I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell [i]will [b]not[/b] prevail[/i] against it."

If we wanted to get snarky, we could say that ND was a good thing for us because:
1) Obama looked like a panderer
2) There was attention brought to the life issue in the mainstream media
3) The protesting seniors got to associate with some of the American Church's most renowned life activists

Shall I go on? There *was* good in this. Hope in the face of adversity should always be preferred over mockery and despair.

[Socrates]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1870680' date='May 19 2009, 12:12 AM']A conscience clause is the bare minimum we should expect in a free and democratic society. I wouldn't say it earns him praise any more than a child doing their chores should be anything special. It should simply be expected.



He is our President, so whether we like it or not, we might as well work with the Obama administration as much as possible to get whatever bare minimum of conscience protection, abstinence education, school choice, etc. passed as possible. Not to mention, there are many other ways to fight the pro-life cause besides attacking Roe v. Wade head on. Sometimes the indirect route works when your opponent is focused on protecting against the direct attack.[/quote]


[quote name='MissyP89' post='1871015' date='May 19 2009, 02:14 PM']I don't know, guys. Perhaps it's just my idealism talking, but I'm not going to give up hope. If Obama says he's going to have a conscience clause, I'm going to pray he holds true to his word.[/quote]
If you'd read the articles Fides linked to, you'd note that a "conscience clause" was already in place under the Bush administration, which the Obama administration was talking about rescinding altogether, but which has not yet been rescinded.
Even if we are to take Obama at his word in this speech, the [i]very best[/i] Obama would be doing is preserving the status quo as enacted under Bush.
Better than his original plan, but it can hardly be considered progress on the pro-life front.
I suspect by "a sensible conscience clause" (if he really means anything at all) he's talking about some compromised version of the Bush clause which would be more restrictive than the Bush version (which is presumably not "sensible").

And as for "education," if you look at Obama's senate voting record, everything he has supported in this regard involves pushing contraceptives.

Already, Obama has increased funding of abortion with your tax dollars by reversing the Mexico City Policy and by funding "embryonic stem-cell research."

While, yeah, it could be wonderful if Obama converted, let's not delude ourselves into thinking he's any friend of the pro-life cause.

[Donna]

Just recalling that on Relevant Radio, there is or was a crusade for prayer via the morning offering maybe? [b]to renew our country...[/b]

I suggest [b]The Holy Face Prayer:[/b]
Er, I have found this prayer to expose or make clear, "things",
andd a help in obtaining truth (and justice)...

[i]Arise O Lord
Let Thy enemies be scattered
Let those who hate Thee
Fly before Thy Holy Face[/i]

[b]~and~[/b]

[i]Eternal Father, I offer Thee
The cross of our Lord Jesus Christ
And all the instuments of His holy Passion
That Thou wouldst put division
In the camp of Thy enemies;
For as Thy Beloved Son has said:
"A kingdom divided against itself shall fall"[/i]

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1870588' date='May 18 2009, 11:08 PM']While obviously the only reason any us (including a good many priests and bishops) oppose Notre Dame bestowing an honorary degree on Obama is because we're mindless right-wing drones conditioned to oppose his every move, the truth is that Obama's record in both the Illinois State Senate and the US Senate has been 100% pro-abortion. [url="http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm"]You can look it up.[/url]
Already, as President, Obama has reversed the Bush administration's Mexico City Policy banning funding of overseas abortion, and signed into law a bill for government funding of embryonic stem-cell research.[/quote]

Yet President Bush had his own list of crimes against humanity... maybe not as severe as abortion, but nevertheless, where do you think Notre Dame should draw the line between choosing to invite the sitting President to speak versus not inviting him (or her)?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1870588' date='May 18 2009, 11:08 PM']Even if Obama was telling the truth about "sensible conscience clause," that would hardly make him a friend of the pro-life movement.[/quote]

I never implied that favoring a conscience clause makes one a friend of pro-lifers. It's the bare minimum of protection that all of us should have in a free and democratic country.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1870588' date='May 18 2009, 11:08 PM']Seems some on here must have been conditioned to defend Dear Leader's every move and attack any who oppose him as mindless lemmings at every opportunity. . . .[/quote]

I just like to get all sides of the story. We all say stuff without thinking it through, especially when we assume our audience is already in agreement.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='MissyP89' post='1871015' date='May 19 2009, 03:14 PM']I don't know, guys. Perhaps it's just my idealism talking, but I'm not going to give up hope. If Obama says he's going to have a conscience clause, I'm going to pray he holds true to his word.

"...I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell [i]will [b]not[/b] prevail[/i] against it."

If we wanted to get snarky, we could say that ND was a good thing for us because:
1) Obama looked like a panderer
2) There was attention brought to the life issue in the mainstream media
3) The protesting seniors got to associate with some of the American Church's most renowned life activists

Shall I go on? There *was* good in this. Hope in the face of adversity should always be preferred over mockery and despair. [/quote]

Yes, exactly! I think, overall, it was a blessing that Obama gave this commencement address. It forced him to say something of substance on abortion, which didn't do much of during his campaign or presidency. It gave pro-lifers a good reason to make a public presence and be in the news. There are also some positive Gallup Poll results indicating that more Americans favor the pro-life cause compared to just a year ago. Sometimes your opponent's best attempt to defeat you ends up playing right into your hands...