I am continually amazed at the ongoing saga of Barack Obama's candidacy. It's not enough that he flip-flopped on campaign contributions and his NAFTA comments (the latter of which, BTW, absolutely annihilates his previous distinct advantage in the "social justice" side of Catholic teaching), now he's trying to reverse his abortion stance...and no one armed with the facts can possibly conclude that this latest ploy is somehow defensible. It's the worst kind of political waffling: the kind that's a deliberate distortion of indisputable facts.

How long will this delusion of Obamessiah, "Catholic Natural," et al. continue?

I don't support Obama or any candidate who is pro-choice, so I hope I'm not construed as such for this.

But it seems to me that his stated reason for voting against BAIPA uses the same logic that others use when people want to make new anti-gun laws or hate-crime laws; basically, it is said that we should enforce the already existing laws on the books. It isn't the most unreasonable thing I've ever heard, I must say.

Would BAIPA have done more than the existing law? What would have been significantly different had it passed? What exactly WAS the old law?

I think all the other points made by Deal in this piece are great, but, I have to agree with the logic that existing laws should be enforced before new and virtually identical ones are crafted.

"I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion."--Obama

I do. Everyone who is opposed to making abortion illegal, and everyone who doesn't care very much about making abortion illegal. I.e., Obama, and everyone who votes for him.

Deal, you are just a little off the mark when you call Obama pro-abortion... he is worse than that; he is radically pro-infanticide. No matter how hard his supporters try they can never erase Obama's grisly record in the IL Statehouse or the US Senate

The trifecta of having opposed BAIPA, cosponsored the Freedom of Choice Act in the US Senate, and spoken out in favor of partial birth-abortion makes Obama the most pro-death candidate to ever run for President of the US.

What is shameful is that Mark Linton would lie and cover up his boss' pro-infanticide record.

Once Stanek's evidence gets out into the mainstream media that Obama voted to deny medical attention to viable babies who survived abortions and were on the medical table kicking and screaming... then he will have a problem.

And how does Obama's "universal health care plan" match up with his refusal to give basic medical attention to small babies? Where is the consistency?

does NOT make it true. I have no doubt that infanticide was illegal before BAIPA passed in the IL Senate...I also have no doubt that Republicans created this bill for this exact purpose...to make Democrats look like radicals. There was not legal necessity to this bill and a version of it was passed by the U.S. Congress just so they wouldn't be painted in the same way.

I read the Relevant interview and believe Obama that he supports a ban on late term abortions. The truth is that Obama is not a radical on the issue. He has actually shown a more moderate position than we have seen from a Democratic candidate in a long time.

That position of supporting a ban on late term abortions and working to reduce the number of abortions through supporting women may not satisfy some, but painting him as the most radical candidate is just not true.

If we are going to move forward on the issue of abortion, we must be honest with where people are at and work to transform and engage from there.

BDK, after he was challenged by the pro-aborts on his Relevant Magazine interview, he started backpeddling saying all he meant was "feeling blue" was no reason to get an abortion. The problem is that his record and his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act contradict his attempt to moderate his views. If he really wanted us to believe him he would retract his promise from a year ago to sign that bill his first week in office. If Obama is seeing the light, that's great, but it will take more to convince most people than some vague comments.

Does the Truth come from his Words or his Deeds?

I wish more Republicans, including you Deal Hudson, would consider what more needs to be done to create a culture of life. It's not enough to antagonize the opposition until we get more abortion football politics. For once, I'd like to see serious Catholics come together to reduce abortion than score political points by demonizing the other side. If you're going to talk the talk, walk the walk, which I dont see us doing enough of.

Why don't the Catholic Bishop's tell their "faithful"....say on every Sunday during the month of October......that anyone voting for ANY pro abortion....pro choice political candidate.....should not under any circumstance receive the Blessed Sacrament at Holy Mass. Explain very "matter of factly" why....and why it has to be this way. Maybe Catholics today need to experience the potential of losing something as great as the privilege of receiving our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Too much is taken for granted today by all of us. The Universal Church teaches many things.....some of which seem difficult to live by in this modern world....but.....they are really not. If you don't accept....don't agree with what the Church teaches....maybe....we should come to Mass and refrain from receiving the Blesssed Sacrament until we can or do. Or...perhaps find another Church that does. It is a privilege be a Catholic. It is afterall....the Church Our Lord founded on the Apostles. If we have to suffer a little bit....so be it. That seems to be part of living....at least living out the Gospel.

It is quite telling that Obama seems to be ashamed of his pro-abortion position when he speaks to Catholics, but quite proud of it when speaking elsewhere. Obama is trying to be all things to all people. He doesn’t want to offend his pro-abortion supporters, and he wants pro-lifers to believe that he despises abortion. The “I don’t know anyone who is pro-abortion” quote should bring him more ridicule than Dan Quayle ever received for any of his misstatements.

Obama can’t have it both ways. Either he supports abortion rights or he doesn’t, and his actions as a politician have clearly shown that he does. To try to assail those who are exposing the truth about him makes him look small.

The press in this country has helped give Obama (and many other Americans) the impression that he is unassailable and invincible. The fact that he’s flip-flopping all over the place on this issue (and many others) should be a sign that this guy is very beatable in November.

This approach has a grave danger, no matter the goodwill or intentions - though everyone can agree that reducing the "number" of abortions is a good thing. The Catholic mission, however, can never be fulfilled by this palliative - the Catholic mission is to recognize the sanctity of life which means that how we characterize unborn life is far more telling and meaningful than the names we call each other. Mr. Obama has referred to unborn life as "a choice", "a punishment", "an unwanted pregnancy" - which has only the value and entitlements that the mother elects, and which the government should not impose or prescribe. He would extend this "non-beingness" of unborn life throughout the whole world - and normalize the radical feminist agenda of redefining unborn life as a female "condition" alone. From everything I have read, Mr. Obama fully embraces the "non-beingness" of unborn life consistent with the political and commerical objectives of Planned Parenthood and NARAL. So, while he may well support the reduction in overall numbers of abortions, I would not expect him to support extending legal recognitions or protections to unborn life, such as supporting the Unborn Victims of Violence legislation. There is a reason, afterall, why NARAL - the chief proponent of the "non-beingness" of unborn life - has given Mr. Obama a 100% approval rating.

What the law in Illinois was that BAIPA would have changed?

I think Obama has already shot himself in the foot here, but I am curious as to why there was a need for a new law.

On a side note, I think Obama could ditch the pro-choice supporters and still win the presidency. What are they going to do? Vote for McCain?

And how many more Christians would then vote for Obama? Millions more! I would be one of them.

But I'm not holding my breath.

It's a nice try, but what Deal Hudson is asking us to do is to ignore the facts and divert our attention to a scurrilous interpretation of the facts.

Let's review the 3 arguments:

1) The Illinois bill was redundant to state law.

Deal says: "But as Obama well knows, the BAIPA law was introduced precisely because infants were being allowed to die in Illinois hospitals for lack of treatment, as witnessed personally by Stanek, an Illinois nurse."

Nevermind the absurdity of saying what Obama "knows," where is the evidence of infants actually being denied treatment beyond one person's account (a person, mind you, who is in league with far right partisans whose real goal is to prevent Catholics from voting for a Democrat)?

2) BAIPA was actually designed to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Deal says: "But when the Senate passed BAIPA unanimously in 2002, it contained language expressly stating that it could not be used to overthrow Roe. If that was their intention, why would its sponsors -- including Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) -- specifically add this language? The answer is simple: to prevent any further acts of barbarism such as those witnessed by Stanek."

Hudson's real intent with this statement is to confuse readers about which "Senate" version he's describing. Indeed, the federal version (passed in the US Senate) did contain that language and Barack Obama is on the record having said he would support it. But, that language never made it into the IL version, which leads us to number 3.

3) Obama voted against a bill containing the same language of the federal BAIPA bill that he supports.

Deal says: "But as Terry Jeffreys at Human Events has shown, Obama voted "no" on a version of the bill that had the same language as that in the federal bill. Stanek, who was lobbying for the bill at the time, attests that Obama explicitly rejected the language of the bill he now says would have enabled him to vote for it."

On what "evidence" does Deal base this charge? The report of two Republican Senators from Illinois (opponents of Barack Obama) and friend of the far-right, Jill Stanek. But nowhere in the public record is there evidence of Obama voting no on a version of the IL bill that was the same as the federal version. There is no basis for Deal's claim, then, beyond non-objective arguments from political opponents.

Deal Hudson has made an attempt to refute the facts with distortions about what really is legal in IL hospitals, by conflating the federal and IL bills to confuse readers and with a mendacious argument about what really happened in committee.

Too bad for Deal Hudson it's become obvious that his real intent is not to inform Catholics about the issues but to offer up partisan piffle against Democrats.

Catholic organizations should get together and start a media blitz to get the word out to the public that Obama is Pro-Infanticide. There are many, many people out there in the general population who are not aware of this fact (thanks to the secular media). What good do we accomplish if we at Inside Catholic constantly discuss his pro-infanticide stance but do nothing to educate the public? It's like preaching to the choir! How many people read this post, mostly those who are faithful to the Catholic teaching I daresay! He,Obama, needs to get pounded on this issue out in the secular world! I'm betting even a non-christian would be horrified if they knew he was for letting babies die, unassisted, without any medication, in filthy linen rooms!

Colin:


Perhaps Deal misspoke and meant, "should know, if he has the reasoning power of the average adult." After all, I quite agree that it's difficult to know what a person "knows" until you, and they, are confronted by exactly the same facts. But if you know they've observed what you've observed, and you're confident that there is only one correct interpretation of those observations, and that it is readily apparent, then it is reasonable to assume that either (a.) they "know" what you know, or (b.) they are less than rational.

In this instance, it seems the history of the BAIPA law was common public knowledge; the contentiousness of the topic led to additional publicity. It is probably only doing credit to Obama's awareness of current events to assert that he must "know" where BAIPA came from.


First, are you asserting that the person making the report lied? I admit I don't know anything about her, where she worked, or anything. Has anyone shown her claim to be unreliable?

Second, who are the "far-right" partisans to whom you refer?

Third, what makes them "far-right" as opposed to, say, "conservative" or "libertarian" or "moderate" or some other adjective?

Fourth, in what sense is the person "in league" with these partisans? Is it just that he/she agrees with them, or some kind of organizational membership, or what?


Good point. Deal, if you can show evidence for Obama's opposition for an IL bill with the protect-Roe language in it, you must do so.

On the other hand, Colin, you still describe Stanek as "far-right" which is (a.) facts not in evidence, and (b.) doesn't bear on the truth or falsehood of particular claims. Are you saying the two Republican Senators lied? Can you support that?


"Democrats?" Was Deal a Zell Miller opponent, also? I was under the impression he opposed the election of politicians of any party, if their election was likely to perpetuation abortion. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

And, as for "partisan piffle": Deal is asserting that Obama is a sinful choice for the Catholic voter because his election would lead to more abortions in America than the election of the only likely alternative (McCain). Is the abortion topic "piffle" in your view? If so, does the Church agree?

In the arguments between Catholics who oppose Obama because of abortion, and Catholics who support Obama, I have detected a recurring theme.

It goes like this:

Obama Opponent (OO): "Obama has taken positive action to perpetuate infanticide in the U.S."

Obama Supporter (OS): "No, he hasn't."

OO: "Yes he has: He voted against an IL law which would have limited infanticide."

OS: "Yes, but he voted against it, not in order to perpetuate infanticide, but in order to protect Roe vs. Wade."

Now it seems to me that this reply from the Obama Supporter is really throwing out the baby with the bathwater, if you'll pardon the expression.

What "Protecting Roe" Is All About:

What, if not to protect "a woman's right to choose," is the purpose of "protecting Roe vs. Wade?" If a person takes positive steps to protect Roe, does he not thereby perpetuate the legality of abortions in states which, were it not for that ruling, would outlaw some or all abortions?

By taking steps to protect Roe, Obama supported infanticide. Q.E.D.

True, Obama may not know that was what he was doing. He, through a mix of innocent and willful ignorance, may think an unborn child is not an "ensouled" being with rights. So, to whatever extent Obama's ignorance is innocent (not willful), he may be off-the-hook for perpetuating the murders of these individuals.

But note: Catholics who want to support Obama are not let off the hook, because they are Catholic. The Church teaches infallibly that the deaths of these children are acts of infanticide.

So even if Obama has some excuse, a Catholic voter does not. If he supports Obama, he is supporting a candidate whom he knows will, and has already taken positive steps to, perpetuate infanticide.

Catholics who oppose Obama should thank Obama's supporters for making an argument which admits that Obama took steps to protect Roe. By doing so, the Obama Supporters demonstrate conclusively how unsuitable a choice Obama is, for the obedient Catholic voter.

JMS:



I have two replies to that:

(1.) It is difficult to publicly say to a person, in whatever tone, "Dude, you're killing a lot of babies," without being accused of "demonizing" that person. Killing babies is, after all, just the kind of thing a demon would do.

Yet these are the facts of the case.

I'll grant that we Christians don't have to say every true statement that occurs to us, all the time. But on important topics, when the truth is disputed or denied, Christians are morally obligated to state the truth boldly.

That remains true, even if we're accused of "demonizing" others by doing so.

(2.) How, exactly, will "serious Catholics com[ing] together" work to "reduce abortion?"

I suppose "serious Catholics" could hold a very large meeting: in a stadium, perhaps. They would then all be "together." But I don't know that it'd help much. The Pope did something similar quite recently, holding Mass in Stadiums...and if his position on abortion is not well-known, I'm not sure whose is.

You may think I speak facetiously: And it's true, I don't really think that gatherings in amphitheaters were the type of "coming together" you had in mind.

But as I'm not sure what you did have in mind, I can't really answer you.

Do you have a more concrete suggestion to make? Or were you mainly just expressing distaste for the rancorous nature of the debate?

(I could completely sympathize if you were. My only caveat then would be to ask you to state your feelings more directly. To suggest that there are things pro-life Catholics could be doing, which they aren't, just leads them to ask, "Well? What do you suggest?")

So the Obama apologists are complaining that the BAIPA was contrived to make the pro-abortionists look bad. Ironically even the most ardent pro-abortion enthusiasts voted for it in the U.S. Senate. And yes the reason for the bill was that hospitals and doctors were killing babies who survived abortions.

Meanwhile we have true believers who will take as gospel the words Obama will say, but ignore his actions, his votes and his words of support for such genocidal agencies as Planned Parenthood and NARAL. So much for the battered voter syndrome.

BDK, a simple question. How does one have a "moderate" position on killing unborn children?

Does your friend Obama support killing babies only on Tuesdays and Saturdays?

Or does he only support abortions being done by his friends at Planned Parenthood?

Colin, as for picking on Jill Stanek, what about the credentials of award winning Village Voice Writer, Nat Hentoff? Nat is certainly no right wing promoter. Yet he has concluded correctly that Obama is in favor of allowed the termination of babies who have survived abortion.

Once again when the facts are presented, the Obama defenders attack the messengers, claim he really did not mean what he said, and otherwise attempt to cloud the issue. They should just admit that they do not care about the abortion issue, that they do not care that their candidate supports Planned Parenthood's position on these issues, that being pro-abortion is not a big deal to them, and that those lives are not that important. After all that is what Obama says. He thinks of babies as a punishment.

Catholics start your own email campaign. Get the word out about Obama's radical pro-abortion stance and support for infanticide. My 21 year old neice was going to vote for him until I shared this video with her. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxQiIzS49D8

I agree that Catholics need to do more to reduce abortion. However, I strongly disagree that Catholics are not already doing so. Catholics are incredibly involved in chastity education, crisis pregnancy centers, single mother support programs, and all of the various programs that combat poverty and its effects.

Also, taking action to reduce abortions does not preclude acting politically to end the public and legal acceptance of abortion as a solution to the fallout of the sexual revolution. Catholics who vote for a pro-abortion candidate in the name of reducing the number of abortions are fighting the wrong battle if they are sincere in their desire to end abortion through social justice.

First of all, I don't believe anything that anyone says if he favors keeping abortion legal. If he is so lacking in basic intellectual honesty and basic moral integrity, he will lie about absolutely anything--war, taxes, corruption--and "making abortion rare."

Second: "Reducing the number of abortions" is a good thing--but it is NOT the primary goal of the pro-life movement. Anyone who attempts to make it the primary goal of the pro-life movement is engaging in a deliberate evasion and distraction.

Our government, since January 22, 1973, claims the authority to declare some class of people to be "non-persons," and thus not protected from homicide.

In other words, as long as Roe v. Wade is treated as law, rather than as a judicial crime, our government is totalitarian, not republican. It is no longer legitimate. It is actively working against the PRIMARY purpose of government--to secure the safety of innocent human life.

NO HUMAN LIFE is really safe under the current regime of the United States, because the current regime claims the authority to declare homicide to be non-homicide.

Anyone who votes for Obama is voting to continue the mass murder of Americans--and the mass murder of people in other countries through federal funding of Planned Parenthood and other international abortionists.

I note that our U.S. bishops have sent a message to the G-8 conference urging them to deal with "global climate change."

I urge the USCCB to institute the following reforms:

A) NEVER make any statement with which a Catholic is at liberty to disagree without breaking communion with the Catholic Church. This reform would have two major effects: 1) You would be prevented from abusing your prominent position as bishops, which was willed by Jesus for the purpose of teaching the gospel, not for promoting your own opinions; 2) Your pronouncements would no longer be susceptible to abuse by pro-abortion Catholics, who stack up your left-wing statements of opinion as bogus "Church teaching," and justification for voting for left-wing pro-abortionists. In other words: abandon once and for all the evil "seamless garment" crapola.

B) Stop accepting government money ($2 BILLION/year) for Catholic Charities. This reform would free you, the bishops, from the fear of losing government money for Catholic Charities. Then, you would no longer have to grovel to pro-abortion politicians, and could tell the "Catholics" among them to stop receiving Communion sacrilegiously, etc. Who knows, without oceans of government money, maybe Catholic Charities would become manageable, and stop ferrying girls for abortions, giving them birth control, etc.

Because Catholics in America were overwhelmingly opposed to getting involved in WWI, the National Catholic WAR Council was founded to provide partisan, political, pro-war propaganda for Woodrow Wilson, our first truly fascist President. It has continued through the decades, as the National Catholic Welfare Council, then the USCC, now the USCCB, as an arm of one political party--the party of federal expansion and baby-killing. (Anyone who doubts this--remember the photographs of Kerry bumper stickers festooning the employees' cars at the USCCB.) Its net contribution to the life of the Catholic Church in America is a HUGE negative.

When someone who is "pro-choice" says he does not know anyone who is "pro-abortion," he is saying that he wants women not to need abortions. Barack Obama is claiming that he wants to reduce abortions by dealing with its causes - poverty, lack of sex education and contraception, etc. However, he also believes that women must have the choice to get an abortion if these solutions fail. Pro-choicers are saying, "Nobody really wants abortion, but it's a necessity if women are to be in control of their own sexuality." In the spirit of St. Thomas Aquinas, we need to understand the opposition on their grounds.

The problem is that the belief that abortion is a solution to these problems is pro-abortion. As I said in my previous comment, pro-lifers do a lot to reduce the need for abortion, but we also do not believe that abortion is a valid solution to these problems. To say that abortion is regrettable but necessary is really to say that killing babies is an acceptable solution to poverty, sexual promiscuity and other social ills.

Bob Barr for president!

"There is no doubt that the dramatic progress made in reducing abortions over the last 30 years -- now at their lowest number since 1974 -- will be rapidly reversed under a President Obama."

I disagree on this bit of partisan wishful thinking.

It's more likely the many factors that lead to women choosing abortions will line up in favor of fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions. Abortion continued to decline under Clinton, didn't it?

I think there's a danger that the front people on the pro-life movement are dangerously close to backlash territory on this one. If the political side of the pro-life movement wanted to get on the "change" bandwagon, this would be a good year to switch tactics. A little less care and a little more bludgeoning might damage the cause as much as the incompetence of the W administration.

People who seem willing to gamble the pro-life movement on one office may find themselves bitterly disappointed on election night. And then we have to start from scratch? If our pro-life leadership is going to stick us with that situation, I'd be close to denying them Communion on those grounds alone.

We might do better to invest in better PR on the alternatives to abortion and how pro-lifers are more concerned with action in the trenches rather than one person who picks one or two of the nine people who don't deep-six what other people do to let other people not go to jail for performing abortions on women.

All the demonizing of Senator Obama and other pro-choice legislators, the pro-life advocates' shrill and damning rhetoric, the Religious Right's negative ads, the looney "infanticide" accusations, and baseless predictions of future increases in abortions, etc. will do NOTHING to eliminate abortion or make it illegal. Such activities didn't work leading up to the passage of Roe v Wade and they haven't worked since. But, the Religious Right just keeps on threatening and screaming and damning as if doing so will make the rest of the country suddenly get it.

What these "strategies" are doing today is helping to inform women that Senator McCain is, however lukewarm, pro-life. As women learn that McCain is pro-life and a threat to their freedom of choice, they are changing their minds about voting for him and against what they perceive to be their best interests. McCain really doesn't want all those Hillary supporters to know that he is pro-life. The polls are already demonstrating the consequences of their finding out.

Todd is right: "I think there's a danger that the front people on the pro-life movement are dangerously close to backlash territory on this one. If the political side of the pro-life movement wanted to get on the "change" bandwagon, this would be a good year to switch tactics."

Most rational people would agree with me that it's especially challenging to get anyone over whom you have no authority to come over to your side on an issue when you keep telling him that he is a sinning, evil murderer for holding his current position. Shaming people into desired behavior just doesn't work as will as it used.

Cassie,
There was no "passage" of Roe vs. Wade. That would imply that it came from a law passed by Congress. It came about by judicial fiat.

Cassie:

It is amusing to read all the posts complaining about "demonizing" of people--posts in which no substantive argument seems to be deemed necessary other than "Stanek is Right-Wing," or "the Religious Right," or "loony." In other words, it is the people who complain about "demonization" who resort to "devil-words" instead of facts.

I haven't demonized Sen. Obama. All I have said is that he wants to keep killing babies legal. And I've pointed out that it is unjust to make killing babies legal. Where's the demonization?

As has been pointed out already, Roe v. Wade wasn't "passed," because it is not (purportedly) a piece of legislation.

The Roe v. Wade decision was masterminded by "Catholic" William Brennan, but handed off to Harry Blackmun to write because Brennan didn't want to take the heat for it.

And why did Brennan and his pro-abortion friends want to take control of the issue of abortion?

Because, after their initial success in California and New York, they were LOSING in state after state.

You need to learn some history.

And you need to stop campaigning for murderers, repent, go to confession, and return to the Catholic Church.

I think it's invaluable that you provide a thorough analysis of the limits of Obama's candidacy vis-a-vis Catholic doctrine. Thank you for this.

However, I would also like to see an evaluation of McCain in this light. Patronizing rhetoric aside, McCain is unlikely to protect marriage, nor will he provide obstacles to stem cell research.

Moreover, Catholics are realizing that the Middle East debacle, which the current Pope and his predecessor have unequivocally denounced, is indeed a moral issue. While McCain seems to be playing nice with Catholics lately, nobody questions his obsession with perpetual war in the Middle East. We Catholics ought to be very careful about beating the drum for this guy. The promise of having influence in his administration may be flattering but is it really worth it?

"And you need to stop campaigning for murderers, repent, go to confession, and return to the Catholic Church."

Nice. I wonder what he says to penitents he actually knows.

And for the record, that would be campaigning for a person who might appoint a person or two who might get to swing a group of nine people if a case comes before them that would address people letting people perform abortions on people who ask for them.

This would be an example of a strategy that surely must have secular pro-choicers quaking in their boots. It's also evidence for the notion that the pro-life movement is so casually dismissed in the public debate.

In other words, with friends like this, who needs Obama?

My error, Kathy. Thank you for the correction. Roe v Wade came about in essentially the same manner as our 43rd president.

"And you need to stop campaigning for murderers, repent, go to confession, and return to the Catholic Church."

Fr. Joseph, your omniscience is breathtaking, seemingly divine. Also, non-existent.

I entered this discussion to offer a viewpoint about pro-life strategies. I didn't realize that this discussion goes "your way or the highway." I'm not campaigning for anyone. Never have. Please keep your false conclusions to yourself.

And, thank you for proving my point.

"I don't know anybody who is pro-abortion."--Obama

"As two strong feminist Obama supporters, we know women are well aware that Democratic policies, as well as Democratic leaders, are far less sexist and far more likely to empower women than the policies and leaders of the GOP. For those reasons, we believe, even the most frustrated Hillary Clinton supporters will come around. But telling women that the Democrats' commitment to abortion rights is what should drive their vote, while simultaneously <I>suggesting…that given the choice, having a baby is a more moral choice than abortion, will be understood for what it is: condescending and sexist</I>."--Kate Michelman and Frances Kissling
http://tinyurl.com/6d7pxf

Sen. Obama, meet Kate Michelman and Frances Kissling.

Of course, you have NO clue what I'm like in the confessional, so stuff it.

On this board, I'm not addressing penitents--I'm addressing deluded, hostile, hardened, pro-abortion campaigners, who are working assiduously to promote the blasphemous notion that a person can campaign for a mass murderer, and be a good Catholic.

This is not unprecedented in history. Nazis marched up to Communion, in uniform, in the 1930s, and those German and Austrian Catholics who objected were shushed by their priests, bishops, and fellow Catholics.

"We" (pro-lifers) apparently need ONE more good person on the Supreme Court to reverse previous abortion decisions. That one person doesn't have to "swing" NINE people. You grossly exaggerate the difficulties on that particular front in the effort to restore basic human rights in this country.

And changing the personnel of the Supreme Court for the worse is not the ONLY evil action Obama has promised to take with regard to abortion--he's promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, etc., etc.--all of which has been recited here many times.

Funny: All your sarcasm, trivializing, assumptions, and distortions reveal hostility to the pro-life movement, and none toward the ongoing mass murder in your country. You minimize all concerns about the evil that Obama is COMMITTED to doing, and any good McCain MIGHT do. McCain is no hero of mine, but he is committed to NO evil as grave as the multitude of wicked actions Obama promises his supporters.

No believing Catholic is capable of the sneering contempt for pro-lifers, or the dogged complacency about abortion, that Obama supporters parade on this board and elsewhere.

I wasn't referring to any assumed campaign activities on your part. I was referring to your post itself--the post that is here for everyone to read with his own two eyes--which was contemptuous of the pro-life movement from beginning to end, mocked, as "loony," concerns about Obama's repeated and explicit support of infanticide, peddled distorted history, and counseled complacency and despair about ending legal discrimination and mass murder. Seemed an awful lot like campaigning for Obama.

RK:


Fair enough, provided that we realize that, in a fallen world, our choices are not between a flawed candidate and perfection, but between a flawed candidate and a still more gravely flawed candidate. For this reason, no criticism of any candidate (Obama, McCain, whomever) by me should be construed to mean that he's utterly unacceptable under all circumstances.


Against what, specifically? Since you don't specify, I'll assume you mean against gay marriage, though all kinds of other options (no fault divorce, the financial "marriage penalty") come to mind.

Will McCain campaign vigorously against gay marriage? Of course not. (Will Obama? Of course not.)

In that sense both are deeply flawed candidates.

But I'll still mark McCain as superior on this topic, in four ways:

(1.) In debating/discussing the matter with Ellen DeGeneres, he described marriage as between a man and a woman, thereby defending (albeit weakly) the traditional definition in front of a hostile crowd, yet without exhibiting any rancor on the topic which could get him labeled a bigot. If this is the best defense we can hope for from a politician, then we should take it; it does a little good and no harm. Obama, in the same place, would have done a little harm and no good.

(2.) He is less likely than Obama to favor leftist judges and SCOTUS justices, who are the ones most likely to impose gay marriage by judicial fiat.

(3.) If any legislation exits the Democrat-majority congress which is pro-gay-adoption, pro-gay-marriage, pro-gay-lifestyle, or otherwise deleterious to the traditional family, a president McCain is less likely to sign it than a president Obama.

(4.) Should such legislation be proposed in Congress, it would be opposed by the Republican minority. That minority in the Senate is small enough that even a filibuster could potentially be overridden by the majority. Psychologically this reduces the minority morale: Why make an effort to oppose a bill that says, "No two persons in the United States shall be denied the right to marry on account of their genders" when you're (a.) likely to lose in the Senate, and (b.) President Obama is using the bully pulpit against you? On the other hand, with a President McCain, one will be more willing to fight, with the knowledge that the president (a.) isn't using the bully pulpit against you, and (b.) can back you up with a veto even if you lose in the Senate.

...continuned...

RK:

...continuing my evaluation....


You're right, McCain does not seem as pro-Catholic Teaching on that matter as G.W.Bush.

However, it's a fair bet he's closer to Catholic teaching than Obama. Even if he is identical to Obama on this topic (I've seen no reason to think he's worse), an Obama victory serves to empower those who are more in favor of embryonic stem-cell research than Obama himself; whereas a McCain victory serves to empower those who are more opposed to it than McCain.

Also, and I realize this is likely premature, I have hopes that the embryonic stem cell problem has reached its high-water-mark and is receding as a result of (a.) its complete failure to produce remedies, and (b.) the fact that adult stem cells seem to be succeeding in so many places where embryonic stem cells failed. Nothing succeeds like success, and scientists and funding are, I hope, shifting to where the (moral) action is.


Sure it is. But are you aware of the economic notion of "sunk cost?"

In a nutshell: We're there. Now what? On this topic McCain was more correct than Obama: Obama would have avoided the "surge," and Iraq would be a near-genocidal bloodbath and a failed state today, and Iraqi Christians even worse-off than they are, under the tender ministrations of Sadr and AQI. Instead, McCain supported the surge, and as a result, Al Qaeda has suffered a crushing defeat, Sadr is impotent, Iran is increasingly unpopular for its role in supplying bombs to insurgents, and Iraq is far better off than at any time since Saddam's fall.


Actually, I not only question that, but find it utterly unsupportable. The usual justification for notions like this is the "100 years" quote, which, if read in context, shows McCain favoring a long-term American presence in a pacified and stable Iraq. His model is the American presence in Japan, or at worst, South Korea.

I, too, would oppose 100 years (or even another 10) of Americans and (innocent) Iraqis dying at the rate they were two years ago. But as that now looks extremely unlikely, and something like the U.S. presence in Korea is the most likely outcome, I don't mind a long-term presence, if the investment of all that time and money will result in saved lives and a healthier Iraqi society. At the moment it looks like it will.

In short, if you think Obama is better than McCain re: Iraq, consider that Obama made the better (in your view) original choice, and McCain the better later choice, thereby saving a lot of lives and preventing a lot of chaos. That may not make it a "wash," but it comes close.

Hey, you know from my previous posts that I'm in agreement with you, right?

In fact, in your defense I'll re-iterate something I said earlier to JMS:



So, Fr. Joseph, mostly I think you're stuck trying to not sound like you're "demonizing" folks who are, however, supporting demonic activities. Tough terrain, that.

Still, there are these passages to consider:

Proverbs 15:1
Luke 6:29
Romans 12:9-21

I'm not sure how many coals Todd felt on his scalp from your last reply. Perhaps "stuff it" is more personally satisfying than it is broadly illuminating?

No disrespect intended, Father. M'jus sayin'.

In my book, Todd and Cassie both need to stuff it.

It was subtle humor. You know: "I am too a sweet, gentle confessor. So stuff it."

Father Joe:

Whoops. I missed the vibe there, entirely. I interpreted your tone as genuinely irate rather than self-consciously and ironically so. (In my defense, when you emphasize certain words using all caps as opposed to bold or italics, it's easy to misinterpret. But that's really nitpicking.)

Carry on, sir.

As on several threads before this one, the pro-abortion Catholics have posted their usual Party boilerplate (The bishops say that health care is just as important as abortion. Nobody is pro-abortion. Obama never argued for infanticide. Nothing can really be done about abortion. Jerry Falwell was fat. McCain won't do anything about abortion. Lack of Communized health care is the worst social injustice currently going. The Right-wingers want to kill all the poor, abolish Soshcurity, burn gay people, and BLOW UP THE WORLD.) for awhile and then stopped posting.

But they'll be back, as soon as Deal or someone else on the staff of insidecatholic posts a new article.

R.C. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

First of all I'm not looking for, nor do I expect, perfection from any candidate. But the problem with your "lesser of two evils" position is that you still end up with "evil". Catholics and others have spent too many election cycles settling for unnacceptable candidates as a sort of counterweight against another candidate who's perceived as even less acceptable. We're scolded into voting for a certain presidential candidate because it's vital for Spreme Court nominations. Then we end up with Court appointees who oppose judical reform because because of precedent. This means they won't overturn Roe vs. Wade nor other decisions of previous reformers. The whole thing is a big joke and we Catholics, a potentially serious voting block, are really just a bunch of suckers.

What we need from both the clergy and the laity is clear eyed leadership and courage. Too often we end up with pragmatists who tell us what we want to hear and never deliver for either a lack of integrity or a lack of courage.

Maybe you'right about McCain. Maybe he'll be better than Obama on Stem cell research, gay marriage, and abortion. Frankly, I doubt it.

Most people acknowledge that this war was a travesty. But they don't want to consider that it was an unjust war killing tousands of American soldiers, not to mention hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. And now the neoconservatives are getting ready to start another one with Iran. Are you kidding me? When does the Catholic leadership get off their collective duff and say, "No More"! The Pope has but the American Catholic leadership don't say a word for fear of offending the political zeitgeist.

Do you have a credible source for this bogus statistic?

There will always be abortion because some will "choose" what they think is a quick solution to their fears concerning unexpected pregnancies, but it should not be legal; it should not be easy, it should not be promoted as safe, it should not be sanctioned by national federal or state Law and most especially it should not be funded & supported by any portion of taxpayers dollars.

I had an abortion 27 years ago and for 15 years I thought it was for the best because I thought I would not be a good enough single mother. Yes, the Methodist Church endorsed abortion in the early 1980's to deal with shameful unpleasantries. At the reception desk of Hope Clinic there was a petition clipboard against abortion, mandated by Law, but no protesters outside.....end of story.

But not quite....not by a longshot. 15 years later God found a crack in my life & wiggled in convicting me of sin and I repented in prayer. It's quite painful to see the "monster" side of yourself; to come face to face with your deeds & to live with yourself...even if they were out of fear & lack of self-worth. Then I was led to the the Catholic Church and things got more complicated...mortal sin; venial sin; death of a soul; preventing a soul from eventual Union with God...and then there weres the years of contraception from about the age of 18 up until the dasterdly abortion. Little did I know that the pill worked as an aborficient part of the time. If a normal fertile woman can have up to 3 single baby births within 3-5 years, then did I have perhaps a minumum of 3 more souls on my conscience??

After 20 years I named the aborted child with some encouagement from some women in a Rosary group..and then I mourned that little soul stuck in time; the person society had not allowed me to grieve. In the last couple of years I learned about the possibility of souls lost through contraception...I hope that is all...almost 30 years of this type of revelation is about all I can stand.

I built no family, the men in my life did not seem to care as long as it didn't touch them...so now in my late 50's I have nothing but regrets about death "choices" and no grandbabies to look forward to, as I face the challenges of age. I know that God has forgiven me in my Confessions, yes, absolved but daily these souls are with me and there is constant reminder in the lives of those around me of my former-though-continuing dead choices.
Is this what Obama meant by helping women and families?? By the way, my parents never had any grandchildren for the child I aborted was the only chance. Abortion takes on a "life" of its own. It must never be easy; available on demand. God desires & deserves that every soul He creates should come to be with Him for eternity without human intervention or blockage. * * *

McCain is a Federalist which could possibly mean that he would leave the decision of Roe vs Wade to each individual state
and this would be equally as devastating as Obama signing the Freedom of Choice Act. If McCain is pro-life, then he must be convinced that it is a no win situation to leave this to the states. Planned Parenthood and NARAL will most certainly move in with their billions to influence the uninformed for freedom of choice and "reproductive rights."

Baby Rose *** Also who were the USCCB Bishops with Kerry signs on their cars, Fr. Joseph??
A director of a local Catholic Social Services has an Obama sign in her yard at her personal residence....now I'm waiting for the Obama signs to show up on bumper stickers in the parish parking lot; if they dare.

Here:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

And here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq

Cassie,

Two things:

1) You may not be actively campaiging for Obama (I'll take your word on that) but you support his policies and his lies by repeating them and defending them. In doing so, you are going against your own Church's teachings on life issues. Fr Joseph is correct in his role as a priest to call you to repentance on these lies.
2) Your backhanded slap at President Bush being put in office by a Roe v Wade judicial fiat ignores several facts. First, in 2000 Bush won the popular vote in Florida in recount after recount. Second, the mainstream media did an analysis in 2001 of the disputed ballots which were thrown out by the courts, and even if they had been allowed, they would not have changed the outcome of the state-wide vote. Third, Bush went to court to prevent Gore from stealing the election, and the US Supreme Court ruled in his favor that the state election officials did the right thing by allowing the disputed ballots to be thrown out. Finally, Gore also tried to disenfranchise thousands of votes cast by overseas military members, the majority of whom voted for Bush. In sum, get some therapy for your Bush Derangement Syndrome. I'm glad we are getting a new president if only that such venomous anti-Bush hatred can stop once and for all.

The problem is the hypocrisy in your hearts, not the evil of men. Men are born to sin, this is truth. Ask forgiveness, and you will be forgiven. But those of you who are repeatedly and unrepentently selective in your adherence to the teachings of Jesus Christ have defiled truth and now the world will suffer for your sins. Hell is about to erupt, and most of you will witness the loss of everything you know. It is already written that Barack will be the next President of the USA. He is a good man, but he can not stop what is coming. The Devil, the ancient black death called oil that you have come to depend on, is deeply entrenched and will never give in until the earth cracks open and swallows it's people whole. Most of you have no idea who your enemy really is, because as it is prophesied in Revelations, only a small amount of people will know The Truth.

MICHAEL

Very good article by Chuck Baldwin, pastor and running under the Constituion Party...makes you think really who is the real pro-life candidate among all the 5 candidates.



http://tinyurl.com/635rv6

JOHN McCAIN PRO LIFE? WHAT A JOKE

By Chuck Baldwin
August 22, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Once again, "pro-life" Christians are doing back flips to try and justify their compromise of the life issue by trying to convince everyone (including themselves) that John McCain is truly pro-life. However, these same people know in their hearts that John McCain shares no fidelity to the life issue in any significant or meaningful way. Like many in the Republican Party, McCain's commitment to life is about as deep as a mud puddle.

Dare I remind everyone that the "pro-life" GOP controlled the entire federal government from 2000 to 2006 and nothing was done to overturn Roe v. Wade or end legal abortion-on-demand? When George W. Bush took the oath of office in January of 2001, over one million innocent unborn babies were being murdered in the wombs of their mothers every year via legal abortions in this country. And when George W. Bush leaves office in January of 2009, over one million innocent unborn babies would still be murdered in the wombs of their mothers every year via legal abortions in this country. Eight years of a "pro-life" President and six years of the "pro-life" GOP in charge of the entire federal government and not one unborn baby's life has been saved. Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, and abortion-on-demand is still legal in America.

Had John McCain and his fellow Republicans truly wanted to end legal abortion, they could have passed Congressman Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act. Year after year, Dr. Paul introduced this bill, and year after year, it sat and collected dust in the document room on Capitol Hill.

What would Congressman Paul's bill do? It would do two things: 1) It would define life as beginning at conception and, thus, declare the personhood of every pre-born child. 2) Under Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. In practical terms, Dr. Paul's bill would overturn Roe v. Wade and end legal abortion-on-demand. So, where was John McCain? Why did he not support Ron Paul's bill and introduce a companion bill in the U.S. Senate?

How can John McCain, and his fellow Republicans in Washington, D.C., look pro-life Christians and conservatives in the eye in 2008 and expect that we take them seriously when they say that they are "pro-life"? If the GOP had truly wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade and end legal abortion-on-demand, they could have already done it. They controlled the White House, the U.S. Senate, and the House of Representatives for six long years, for goodness sake. The reason they did not do it is because they did not want to do it. They merely want to use "pro-life" rhetoric as a campaign tool to dupe gullible Christian voters every election year. And the disgusting thing about it is--it works.


check the link for the rest of the article.....
http://tinyurl.com/635rv6