Posted by jimmyd2 on November 13, 2008 at 6:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As a Catholic, a pro-choice politician is a nonstarter. The holocaust analogy made in the article is on point. Catholics believe life begins at conception, all other decisions become obvious. Mr. Kmiec and other cafeteria Catholics need to find another faith tradition that approves of killing unborn children.

Posted by NightLight on November 13, 2008 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am also Catholic but I would not condemn anyone who voted for Obama. Yes, abortion is a very important issue, but the president has a critical role in other issues as well. I won't get into debates on these specific issues but if you believe Obama would end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan more quickly, where thousands of lives have been lost and thousands more are in danger; if you believe Obama would help the economy, where thousands of people go to bed hungry at night; if you believe Obama would help thousands of sick people obtain the health care they desperately need; then I believe it is perfectly justifiable for a Catholic person to support Obama with a clear conscience.

It can also be argued that the president has only limited indirect power in the abortion debate anyway, through Supreme Court nominations and so forth; so even though abortion may be a critical issue, using that as the only reason for selecting a president may not be the most effective use of one's vote, not when he has power and influence over so many additional items that also affect life and the quality of life.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on November 13, 2008 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Kmiec and other cafeteria Catholics need to find another faith tradition that approves of killing unborn children....

What???? What a harsh statement to make....if you do not want children then don't have them! But they are human life!!!!! Murder is Murder.....

Posted by TomC on November 13, 2008 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Except for the abortion issue, Obama and the bishops are talking the same platform," he said.

As a former student of Douglas Kmiec, I would give him an F for making this statement. What about Obama's support for taxpayer funding of stem-cell research on embryos? Prof. Kmiec's statement shows that he is either hopelessly uninformed or misleading his audience. I might also add that abortion and embryonic research are huge exceptions.

By supporting Obama, Prof. Kmiec will have aided the leftward tilt of the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals, resulting in more jurisprudence that he once railed against in class. Prof. Kmiec's taxes might even go to abortion funding under an Obama adminstration.

I want my grade reviewed.

Posted by DoctorDude on November 13, 2008 at 7:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Christianity has devolved into nothing more than abortion and gays...Strange religion indeed.

Posted by DoctorDude on November 13, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In the Christian world, the soul of an aborted fetus goes to heaven. The souls of blown to pieces innocent muslims caught up in a war go to hell. If the goal is to save souls, wouldn't it be more important for the Christian to try and stop unjust wars and vote for politicians who won't bomb the F out of innocent not yet saved souls?

Posted by del on November 13, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The most preposterous notion that H. Sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all of history.

The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other man. But it’s lovely work if you can stomach it.

Any priest or shaman must be presumed guilty until proved innocent."

L.L.

Posted by AnaCapa on November 13, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama is against abortion. He just believes in a woman's right to choose. I agree that the best way to stop abortions it to educate people. There are fewer abortions when sex education is taught in schools. There were fewer abortions when Clinton was President than with Bush W. There are fewer abortions in countries that have sex education as a part of their curriculum. It's a fact, check it out.

Posted by Just_wondering on November 13, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm with AnaCapa - I don't think anyone is pro abortion, but civil rights is the issue at hand, not abortion. Prevention is the key here - sex ed, with abstinence as part of that, but not the only part...we see how well that worked for Sarah Palin.

Posted by alfacrit on November 13, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Preamble, declaration of independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..."

The Constitution of the United States does not give anyone rights, it codifies rights given to men by God. And God does not give men the right to murder, abortion, incest, or unnatural vice such as homosexuality.

Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language…explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion." At the hospital in question, infants born alive despite various means to abort them, were left to die in the medical waste room.

Visualize a child crying herself to death in a dark closet.

Posted by vcsexplorer11 on November 13, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think parents of kids like Julia Rollino, Maggie Schuberg and Josefina Zinkewich should think before they send their kids out to protest.

Many kids who see them in the paper may make fun of them at school or parents of other kids in their school, that are pro-choice, may consider them extremist. Its not worth having your kids in the spotlight preaching your views.

Posted by bombero42 on November 13, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm assuming that all the protesters and their supporters here, voted for Bush, since he was also "pro life". He lied us into a war, murdered 4000+ American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Afghan civilians are being killed every week. Their blood is on the hands of those who voted for an ignoramus for president. Way to go!

Posted by TomC on November 13, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I'm assuming that all the protesters and their supporters here, voted for Bush, since he was also "pro life". He lied us into a war, murdered 4000+ American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Afghan civilians are being killed every week. Their blood is on the hands of those who voted for an ignoramus for president. Way to go!" - Bombero42

Bomber,

Please read the below statement from your esteemed VP-elect, Joe Biden, when he told Tim Russert that Cheney didn't lie. Then, please base your next comment on the facts.

MR. RUSSERT: Where are they [WMD]?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 13, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DoctorDude Actually, many Christians have perished trying to stop Muslims from blowing each other up. Well, no that's not quite right, I can't say that Muslims are blowing each other up, just certain Muslims blowing themselves and other Muslims up, usually women and children that are in a marketplace. These suicide bombers think they're going to heaven for that.

Is it me or has anybody else noticed that the bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased since Obama was elected?

Anyways, this is off topic. It just pisses me off when someone accuses our troops and leaders of deliberately bombing civilians, when so many our our soldiers have died trying to avoid harming the innocents.

Posted by Mister_S on November 13, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Preamble, declaration of independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..."

The Constitution of the United States does not give anyone rights, it codifies rights given to men by God. And God does not give men the right to murder, abortion, incest, or unnatural vice such as homosexuality.

Alfacrit- Please notice that our glorious founders neglected to grant to women equality of existence under their creator. (Much like Christianity). Also....what if I consider my Creator to be Buddah or Gilgamesh. Personally, I have 2 creators....Mom and Dad.

Also....If your God does not give man the right to murder, what about Christianity's most notorious legal fiction...just war?

This being said......this appears to have been a very thought provoking and interesting lecture and I wish I had found out about it in time to attend.

Posted by damary on November 13, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with the professor.

I am NOT a cafeteria Catholic. I am pro-life and seriously looked at the track record of Supreme Court justices that have been nominated by Republicans, and have come to the conclusion that Republicans are doing NOTHING to save the lives of the unborn.

I do not consider McCain to be pro-life. He thinks that there should be exceptions in the case of rape and incest. I am sorry, but a life is a life. Helpless babies should not be killed just because of who their parents are. He is for embryonic stem cell research. This is not consistent with being pro-life. Further, someone who actually understood the dignity of life would care about what happens after birth. I am pro-life from conception until natural death, not just from conception until birth.

I refuse to let my vote be held hostage by a single issue when the party who claims to champion that cause in fact does nothing. I find it more morally offensive to claim to be pro-life but instead just hold those unborn lives hostage to secure votes. The Republicans have obviously decided that it is more politically advantageous to do nothing, and just take advantage of a guaranteed block of voters.

Well, this year, I said enough is enough. The Republican party has been hijacked and is under the influence of some very dangerous people. I do not support a government that is all about the interests of the top 1% of society.

Abortions didn't go up under Clinton or down under Bush. Clinton was supposed to sign FOCA into law as soon as he took the presidency, and it didn't happen because it is a bad piece of legislation that I doubt would get the support of a majority of pro-choice democrats. I am not going to vote based on fear. I am going to vote based on hope. I think that is the Christian thing to do. I will continue to be very vocally pro-life and will urge our President-elect to reconsider how he views the most innocent and unprotected members of society. I do believe that there is a reason that Jesus can move sinners, but that the righteous, who think that they know it all, remain unmoved. It is because their own righteousness convicts them, and they remain impenetrable him.

I am Catholic and I voted for Obama.

Posted by vcsexplorer11 on November 13, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have two question to pro-lifers?

Why do you feel it neccessary to worry about what OTHER people are doing when it comes to ABORTION?

How does it affect you?

I just don't get why people like this, who have a choice not to have a abortion, are worried about what other people are doing. As I understand the bible you will only get punished for what YOU do. Right?
(I am sure pro-lifers won't answer this because they are not capable of rational thought)

Posted by damary on November 13, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

vcsexplorer11, I would care if someone was trying to murder you. You are a person with dignity and value. I would not mind my own business if someone was trying to hack you to pieces, and I would hope that you would have some compassion if you were in a position to save my life.

Posted by NightLight on November 13, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Vcsexplorer11, in a nutshell, we pro-lifers believe life begins at conception, not at birth. Therefore we believe abortion involves the taking of a life.

If a law were passed allowing a woman to kill a newborn with no punishment if she decided she didn't want the child, would you care, even though it doesn't directly affect you? I hope you would. This is why we care about what other people do.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 13, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

vcsexplorer11 30 years ago, when I was a what one could consider very liberal, and very selfish, I had a relationship with a lady who became pregnant. My input was that she should have an abortion. She wanted me to marry her, which I wouldn't do. She decided to keep the child, primarily because of her Catholic beliefs.

My "conversion", if you want to call it that, took place the first day I saw my daughter. I wrestled with my feelings that evening, and I was convicted by God's Spirit for my selfishness. How could I have wanted to destroy my daughter so I wouldn't be hampered in my pursuit of happieness? I got down on my knees weeping, and asked the Lord to forgive me, and he has. My daughter's mother never has, but that's between her and God. Now, 30 years later, I have 2 beautiful granddaughters, ages 4 and 2.

So, to answer your question, for someone else to have or not to have an abortion had a great affect on me. There is a ripple affect on many people, even though it does get down to an individual woman's right to choose.

I am pro-choice, I just hope that the choice is life. That's why when my daughter got pregnant twice out of wedlock, and decided to not to have abortions, I was proud of her. That's not to say I was happy she got pregnant in the first place.

Many of the so called pro-choicers are actually pro-abortion and distort the pro-lifer stance. My wife and I had this discussion over the last election. She thought Sarah Palin was wrong and evil (no made up words there) for keeping her son that has Down's Syndrome. She thought she should have had an abortion and had no right to allow him to be born. Does that sound pro-choice to you?

I am not Catholic, and frankly, I really don't see how anyone can call themselves Catholic if they don't follow all the beliefs of the Catholic Church. They may embrace parts of it, but not all. Just because I like some vegetarian foods, that doesn't make me a vegan.

Posted by damary on November 13, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ojaiguy, thanks for sharing your story. I think the ironic thing about being pro-choice is that very often it is not the mother who is really the one making the choice to have an abortion. The women I know who have had abortions did so under pressure from boyfriends and husbands and even bosses. There are even parents who will force their daughters to have abortions. So many of these abortions are not done with free consent.

Honestly, I wish that we lived in a world where these women felt free to say yes to life. I know when I was pregnant for the first time, my (now ex) husband tried to pressure me into an abortion. Thank goodness I didn't give into him, like I did in just about every other instance. I had to make a lot of sacrifices in order to be able to afford to have my daughter 17 years ago, but every hardship is well worth it. She is a wonderful person and I am happy that I did what I knew in my heart was the right thing.

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 13, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think people that refer to Obama as Pro-Abortion are complete and utter idiots. You ARE. Pro-Choice means that you believe each individual woman has a right to decide what they want to do with their pregnancy under certain cirumstances.

Here's a scenario for you Pro-Lifers:

Single Mother of two is pregnant but finds out that she has a genetic disease that will risk her life and possibly her baby's life if she follows through with the pregnancy. Worse yet, the medication to help with the condition has the side-effect that it might cause for the fetus to be aborted early on. What would Jesus do?

I've now met 3 women who have faced this very scenario. Under a "PRO-LIFE" agenda, there's no option for the woman...she must have the baby and die and leave behind her two children as well as possibly a new baby (if the baby makes it through OK). Under a "PRO-CHOICE" agenda, that Mom could choose to end her pregnancy early on and avoid the major catastrophe that her death would leave behind.

Besides, as I once heard, if Men could have babies, Abortion would be a RIGHT not an issue.

Posted by Fred on November 13, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am pro choice. I think that as many steps as possible should be taken to prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion (e.g. education, free contraception), but when it comes down to it, it should be the woman's right to choose whether to go through with it.

This is largely based on the belief that if we legislate against this, it will simply return to coat hanger, back room abortions that are extremely dangerous. Horrific things will happen.

Posted by p_j46 on November 13, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ABORTION is MURDER plain and simple.

Posted by oreo on November 13, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I had to come on to comment because I want to express on this subject, first of all I am Catholic, last week my son was repremanded for a comment he made in caticisum (sp?) I was told to talk to him because he was "off tract and needs to focase more", I asked him what did all that mean? He said "we were asked who we wanted to say a prayer for and all the kids said, mom and dad, but I said I wanted to pray for Obama, that he will be safe and they got mad at me and said youre not sappose to talk about that here!" That angered me because after mass and on the weekly bulliton, they mentioned over and over what propostions to vote for, so why is the chruch being hypocrites about politics? I was confused about it but now my question is answered.

Posted by Fred on November 13, 2008 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just a question for those who are believe that life begins at conception... IVF throws away 50,000 embryo's per year (cause our current administration will not allow them to be used for stem cell research). Are you willing to ban all IVF and all couples from having the opportunity to have children? Where do YOU draw the line?

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 13, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BabyzDaddy I kinda think that you are exaggerating and sterotyping. Sure, there are some extremists that that fit your argument, but the overwhelming people of Pro-lifers that I know do not fall into that category. It's like saying they all bomb abortion clinics. Everyone I know finds that abhorrant and condemn that behavior.

What most pro-lifers argue is that abortion has become to easy and routine, that the pro-choicers don't counsel that there are other options besides abortion. When abortion was legalized as a method of birthcontrol, it was during the first trimester. Now, with partial birth, it can be done just prior to live birth. So, they have a legitimate argument.

There is also a legitimate argument that the consequences for having an abortion can have a heavy toll on a woman, both physically and emotionally. Many women have carried the guilt of an abortion their entire lives, they haven't forgiven themselves. Some women aren't able to have children afterwards.

I am pro-choice, I think that women should have a choice. I hope that women choose life because I believe it is the right thing to do. But you know what? Pregnant women don't come to me wondering what they should do.

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 13, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just because you surround yourself with open-minded pro-lifers doesn't mean that the rest are that way. It's not the open-minded ones that scare me, it's the unreasonable close-minded ones.

I've seen (seemingly) normal Catholic Moms turn into something indescribable when this topic is brought up. How can I be stereo-typing if I've actually MET people like that? Please explain that to me. Generalizing, maybe (but so are you to say they that most are not). To each his/her own experiences right?

It just bugs me when they use the term "pro-abortion" who's "PRO-Abortion" for ALL situations? Seriously. I think there should be some common-ground here, but it seems to me that the Pro-Life side only fights to one extreme position of making ALL abortions Illegal. While I don't agree with late-term abortions, to eliminate the choice of a early-term abortion all together is just unreasonable.

Posted by damary on November 13, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BabyzDaddy_01, I think that you are using the same type of extreme case to peddle fear that some pro-lifers use when they say that Obama is pro-infanticide. Do you really think that this country would pass abortion laws that would force women to die when there was no hope for the infant?

Western Europe has the lowest abortion rates in the world. Ireland has the strictest anti-abortion laws in Western Europe, but it still makes exceptions for the health of the mother. Spain and Portugal put limits on when abortions can be done for the health of the mother. Afterall, if the baby is likely to be viable, why wouldn't we choose to deliver a live baby? Killing the baby would do nothing to protect the mother, and in fact the procedures used in late term abortions are far more dangerous to the mother than just giving birth, either through induction or planned c-section.

It just seems like if we want to be rational we could come up with better laws than we have now.

Posted by Wendy_Halderman on November 13, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

John McCain said, "I hate war. I know how terrible its costs are." Still, he knows it is necessary and would not hesitate to engage in it for the greater good.

Men and women have their respective battlefields. We must grieve our losses while also remaining aware of why these losses are sometimes necessary.

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 13, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

damary: It's not instilling fear. Ojaiguy shared his experiences...so am I. Nothing wrong with that. It's called "substantiating my position". These three ladies that I know come from VERY Catholic families and chastised and outcasted them for their decisions. One even went to a Priest who told her (this is coming from her by the way, not my first hand account) that 'God would want her to have the baby and that God will ensure that she's safe either here or in God's heaven.' WTF?!?! (Throw in the "God works in mysterious ways" line and there you have it the end all cure all...Catholic Style!)

I have a reason for believing what I do, even if the view of the otherside is one of extreme cynicism and distrust.

Posted by Graesan on November 13, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK FRED, put down the Kool-Aide. The "current administration" does not have anything to do with the embryos created from IVF treatment. Bush DID NOT ban stem cell research - only federal FUNDING of the research. All the fools out there who are so blinded by liberalism need to go back to civics class. Obama is not suddenly going to allow stem cell research - it is already happening in many states - he is going to allow the Fed. government to PAY for it. The states of Missouri and California both pay for stem cell research. BTW - the research, to date, has been less than stellar.

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 13, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Damary: "Do you really think that this country would pass abortion laws that would force women to die when there was no hope for the infant?"

Experience tells you that laws get passed in this country based on who puts up the most money to get it passed. Appoint the appropriate Supreme Court justices and you've got it locked down. Don't kid yourself Damary.

Posted by bugmenot on November 13, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MisterS-

>>Preamble, declaration of independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..."

>>The Constitution of the United States does not give anyone rights, it codifies rights given to men by God. And God does not give men the right to murder, abortion, incest, or unnatural vice such as homosexuality.

MisterS- notice it says "their" creator and not "your" creator or the "majority" creator. My creator may as well be spaghetti. For you to say "And God does not give men the right to..." X, Y, and Z; it shows that you cherry pick the parts of the constitution to further your beliefs. Have you forgotten the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That preamble is way outdated anyway. It should be updated to say:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (UNLESS YOU'RE GAY AND PLEASE DON'T READ THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..."

camdaddy101:
>>If ANY church wants to start dictating how people vote, they need to start paying taxes.

HEAR HEAR!

I'm not religious. I don't mind people or places that are. But I do mind when religious people tell me what I can or cannot do. And when a certain religious entity does intrude into my personal life via politics, I ensure to file a IRS 501(c)(3) Complaint by filing IRS Form 13909.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 13, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Surround myself with pro-lifers? I don't surround myself with anybody of any certain persuasion. In fact, had you read more clearly what I previously wrote, my wife's position was that Sarah Palin was wrong and evil for allowing her son to be born because he has Down's Syndrome. Yet her position remains that it is strictly a womans choice. Me, I feel feel that it was a difficult decision to make and respect Sarah Palin for her pro-life decision. Even Sarah Palin believes it is a woman's choice, yet she receives critism for the choice she made.

Most Pro-lifers, not all but most, argue that it is the abortion procedure used strictly as a method of birth control they find abhorrant, those that are performed because of lifestyle and not out of medical necessity, rape, incest or minor children.

Posted by BabyzDaddy_01 on November 13, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ojaiguy: My comments were not in direct response to what you posted in your earlier comment. It was in response to your comment: "the overwhelming people of Pro-lifers that I KNOW do not fall into that category."...My comment stands.

Posted by Mister_S on November 13, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bugmenot-
I believe you mis-read my opinion. Please read alfacrit's comment and then mine....I was commenting on that particular statement. (It appears I'm on your side....)

Posted by NowHearThis on November 13, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Kmiec needs to join the Episcopals, the leftist-liberal, watered down version of the Catholic Church. At least then, his wacky view might be accepted by wacky people.

Posted by damary on November 13, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NowHearThis, it sounds like you don't really understand what it is to be a Catholic if you think it is about not being to the left. Much of Catholicism is to the left of center. In order to be a good Catholic, one does not need to believe that the Republican party is deserving of unqualified allegience.

Your post is a good example of why politics and religion are a bad mix. You would divide our Church based on your political ideology.

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 13, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Babyz Uh, yeah, right. Most people I know that are prolifers do not fall into that category. That doesn't mean I surround myself with prolifers. I know a whole lot of people, most of whom I have no idea, or care, of what they think. In fact, since I hang mainly with my wife, my family as well as hers, all of whom are pro-choicers, and by that I mean they believe an abortion on demand for anytime and all reasons, I actually am surrounded by people of different positions.

Bug...AMENDMENT XIII
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

Are we trying to start a totally different topic now on slavery? That is, like, so 19th century.

Posted by lawabider on November 13, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The surgeon general has determined that ten out of ten people DIE... Death is an integral part of life and happens to EVERYONE... Why so many of the living are consumed with the responsibility of who gets to live and who has to die is amazing! Instead of arguing over the woman's right to choose to abort an unborn fetus (notice how I put that), why aren't we imposing stronger penalties on the ones that take the lives of the already living?

Posted by bugmenot on November 13, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiGuy- Oops, AMENDMENT XIV. That's what happens when I quote the constitution from memory (my excuse; i'm a medical marijuana patient :). It was in reference to Prop 8 as you probably have assumed.

MisterS- I quoted the quoter. Sorry about that. It should have been directed towards alfacrit. We give him too much attention. Again, see my excuse above. :)

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 13, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bug LOL That used to be my excuse, now it's senior moments.

Posted by damary on November 13, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BabyzDaddy_01, I think that you are confusing the role of the Church and the role of the government. A priest is in the right to tell someone what is the absolute most moral thing to do and to challenge them to make choices that require heroic sacrifice. Our priests want to help us to become saints. Of course, there should be compassion and mercy in what they counsel, and sometimes that part of the message might not be emphasized enough.

I don't think that you are ever going to see a day though where we have a government making legislation that requires us to act as living saints. Heroic sacrifice is not something that can be legislated. The role of government in creating laws is to see that the rights of its citizens are protected. Certainly the right to life is an important one. Just because some people hold themselves to a high standard when it comes to protecting the lives of the unborn, does not mean we can't have laws that both protect the innocent lives of pre-born babies and the lives of the women who carry them. Everything does not have to be either/or.

I guess I am cynical too. I don't vote based on Supreme Court nominations. I think that the system we have in place does protect us from having a particular president or party being able to dictate court decisions. As we have seen in the past, it is anyone's guess how a Supreme Court justice, once nominated and confirmed, will vote. Some of Bush's Supreme Court justice picks have made comments that sound very supportive of Roe v. Wade.

Posted by eclipsewatcher on November 13, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If men could have babies, abortion would be a SACRAMENT.

BTW, if men could have babies, the human race would be in BIG trouble. Between football season, The Super Bowl, basketball season, the NBA playoffs, baseball season, the World Series, The World Cup, Wimbledon, The Masters, The Stanley Cup, the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders tryouts . . . oh, and tax season, there would never be a good time for men to get pregnant! :)

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 13, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Elclipse, I resent the fact you left out fishing with our buddies. I'm sure you realize that all these activities are simply an excuse to drink beer, our true motivation. Maybe if women wore perfume that smelled like beer, you would have more of our attention. "Au de Bud", yeah, baby.

Posted by Fred on November 13, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Graesan,
Stem cell research is in its infancy with huge promise for all to benefit (less than stellar? did you expect new organs in a week?). Bush's actions on funding have dramatically limited progress as the majority of the funding is federal for this type of research. The federally approved lines are nearly useless and researchers are greatly limited by chuckleheads rules. Why should CA foot the 3B bill that all will benefit from? My point is that these embryo's go into the trash and we cannot use them for advancing potentially lifesaving treatments?

This is all secondary to the central question which none seem willing to answer - so Graesan, lets directly ask you.

Are these embryos lives?
If so, then should all IVF should be blocked?
Where do you draw the line?

Posted by eclipsewatcher on November 13, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiGuy: Sorry about the omission! According to “The Smell Report” (I'm paraphrasing of course), the smells that get the most reaction out of men are apparently cinnamon, pumpkin pie, licorice, doughnuts and lavender, oriental spice and cola, and combinations of these smells, with the most effective being lavender/pumpkin pie mixture, a doughnut/black liquorice mixture and a pumpkin pie/doughnut mixture. Hey, I don't make this stuff up! :)

I know I'm way off topic, folks, but I'm outta here.

Posted by manchu49 on November 13, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Right on! camdaddy101 Great Opinion!

Posted by lawabider on November 13, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So I should bathe in lavendar before I bake all my pies in two weeks?? Sounds good for my hubby AND me!!!

Posted by OjaiGuy on November 13, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Eclipse, that is because we have the misfortune of being only able to use our brains one half at a time, and even, we don't always use the half that's working. So be gentle with us, we can't help it.

Posted by damary on November 13, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Are these embryos lives?
If so, then should all IVF should be blocked?
Where do you draw the line?"

Yes they are lives. Stem cell research on adult stem cells is fine, and has yielded promising results. Embryonic stem cell research is immoral. Life should not be created with the intention of destroying it. If mashed baby parts were touted as being the fountain of youth, I would hope you would not buy into it. It is sick that the youngest and most helpless of us would be used in this way.

Where do I draw the line? Life begins at conception, so that *is* where I would draw the line. I do not believe that IVF is a moral solution to fertility problems for that reason. The cost is too high. I know that many who would like to become parents might not have considered how many new lives are created through IVF and how few will ever be born. It is rather cruel to create a child only to leave it frozen and uncared for. I am sure that is not part of the dream of becoming a parent, but unfortunately with IVF that is the sad reality.

Posted by damary on November 13, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"These women might feel pressured, but last time I checked women ave equal rights in America. In fact they get a vote on this decision, we men do not.

In cases of rape it should absolutely be an option.

If I were in the position to make that choice, and I was to some degree, I choose to have the baby, but I don't go telling anyone else that they must care for, raise, feed, cloth and support a child for 18 years unless I'm prepared to take over when they can't."

You do get a choice. If you don't have sex with someone, you won't get them pregnant.

Therein lies the real reason for the huge increase in the abortion rate. Too many people have separated the concept of giving life from the activity of having sex. A baby is the natural result of having sex. People seem to think that contraception guarantees them that they can do whatever they want with no consequences, but that isn't the case. Ironically it is the huge rise in the use of contraception that has led to the huge rise in abortion. If sex were kept in marriage and if those who engaged in it were ready to accept a baby, then we really wouldn't have the problem that we have with more than a million babies murdered a year.

I know that is not the popular view, and I don't expect that contraception will ever be outlawed. I do think that the contraceptive self-centered view of the world is what has led to the massive rise in STD's, abortions, and divorces. I wish people would understand how much better the world would be without contraception.

And I do believe that natural family planning, if people really understood it would be more popular.

Posted by vcsexplorer11 on November 13, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

damary, nightlife, and ojaiguy,

To answer your question, if my parents didn't want me and wanted to abort, then I wouldn't care because I would be incapable of caring because I wouldn't be writing this message.

As at matter of fact I would have appreciated that I was not brought into a world to be raised by a parent who didn't care about me or most likely abused me, physically or emotionally.

It appears that torturing children is something you care less about. You want to call abortion murder but a unwanted kid is more likely to commit suicide. This is not my case, my childhood was fine, but I know people who told their kid straight up that they never wanted them. One guy I knew blew his brains out.

So impose your will on your own children.

Posted by vcsexplorer11 on November 13, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One more thought.

I know many pro-lifers and they all have one thing in common. Besides being pro-life they are anti-birth control.

Many of them are single mothers with multiple children from different men. Possibly they were trying to trap men into loving them by having their baby (which failed) or just don't care.
Others are friends and relatives who have more children then common sense. They seem to be always asking to borrow money, but I turn them down. I know they will never pay me back, so I come up with polite excuses.

I wonder sometimes if their kids had a choice, what would they do.

Posted by Fred on November 13, 2008 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

damary,

I thought I followed your logic (although I disagree with you) until the rape case. It is still a life nonetheless, how can you terminate it?

I think an embryo is nothing more than a ball of cells and I think it would be cruel to prevent a huge number of people from having children using this technology. Way more couples than you know use this to have children, particularly with our society opting to have children later.

As vcsexplorer11 says, if I had been aborted I would not have minded one bit because I would never have known it. This does, however, make the line hard to draw. I think that the currently accepted standards are about right in terms of when a baby can be aborted.

Posted by bombero42 on November 13, 2008 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TomC

Conservatives just got through saying what a fool Biden was, mixing up Roosevelt talking on TV instead of Radio. Now you want to use him as an expert? Sorry but he is wrong. Early on, the inspectors were saying he had WMD. Later on they said no, they had not found anything at all, and they were being allowed to look anywhere they wished. Bush lied us into the war and that was proven beyond a doubt by the goverment report.

Posted by bg on November 14, 2008 at 12:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Catholics are urged to vote their conscience, but what type of conscience would think that the rights of a LIVING human being can be taken away by the mere fact the human being is in the womb of their mother? To restate: all people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...in that order, according to the Declaration of Independence. Obama supports taking the right to life away from those living in the womb. A Catholic in good conscience cannot and should not support this.
Catholics should support our president-elect, but pray and work harder to protect the rights of all people, from conception until natural death.

Posted by TomC on November 14, 2008 at 6:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bomber,

Ok. So from your perspective in California, you think that Joe Biden, on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was wrong when he stated that "Well, the point is, it turned out [Saddam] didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued."

You are entitled to that erroneous belief but it would be better for you to re-examine it. It might cause you to let go of your irrational hostility to the Bush Adminstration who believed, along with everyone else in the world, that Saddam possessed WMD.

Bush did not lie, as demonstrated by the independent Robb-Silbermann report of 2005:

"We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."

Read that a few more times and try to let it sink in. Bush did not lie. Bush did not lie.

Tom

Posted by bombero42 on November 14, 2008 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

TomC You don't give a date for when Biden made that statement. But since you seem to like the Senate Intelligence Committee, read their final report here. He did lie and it is proven beyond a doubt. Instead of using old outdated information, read this a few times and let it sink in.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605...

This report was signed by both Democrats and Republicans on the committee.
Glance through the many speeches made by this administration. Then check the
conclusions on whether those speeches were backed up by facts.

Page 15, Nuclear- conclusion 1.
Page 38 Chemical-conclusion 4.
Page 49-50 WMD -conclusions 5 & 6
Page 57 Delivery- conclusion 8
Page 71 Links to terrorists- conclusions 12,13,14.
Page 89 Intent- conclusion 16

Then check out Rockefeller's additional views on page 89 and 90

Posted by damary on November 14, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"damary,

I thought I followed your logic (although I disagree with you) until the rape case. It is still a life nonetheless, how can you terminate it?

I think an embryo is nothing more than a ball of cells and I think it would be cruel to prevent a huge number of people from having children using this technology. Way more couples than you know use this to have children, particularly with our society opting to have children later.

As vcsexplorer11 says, if I had been aborted I would not have minded one bit because I would never have known it. This does, however, make the line hard to draw. I think that the currently accepted standards are about right in terms of when a baby can be aborted."

Fred, I believe that you misunderstood what I wrote. I am not in favor of exceptions for rape or incest. McCain is the one that is in favor of that, and I therefore find his view to be inconsistent. All life has dgnity and value, even the offspring of rapists.

I am aware that IVF is very common. I live in Thousand Oaks and am far younger than the average high school parent here. Many of my neighbors and even some of my family have undergone IVF. I have to wonder if they fully understand the cost to their other children that they have created who will never be allowed to be born. I do not support IVF, but at the same time I have to remember that I have a pretty big beam in my own eye, so I will not be so presumptuous as to stand in judgement of my neighbors. If given a vote, I would vote for life.

And as to whether or not you were wanted by your parents....that really isn't the only issue. Each of us touches others in so many ways. There would be a gaping void in this world had you never been born.

Posted by marketrealist on November 14, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I always wonder why Catholics and other fundamentalists who are adamantly against abortion are not equally adamantly pacifists.

We have killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and are bombing weddings, civilian gathering in Afghanistan. We kill mothers, young people, babies, the sick, and the elderly.

We are one of a handfull of countries that refuse to ban landmines that maim children by blowing off their limbs.

We have a war machine that gobbles up about $700 billion per year of our federal budget.

Is not killing in all forms wrong?

Posted by del on November 14, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"... Some shamans think that it is better to be killed in a war, or to die in childbirth, or to starve in misery, than never to have lived at all. They may be right. But I don’t have to like it--and I don’t."

L.L.

Posted by del on November 14, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State."

E. Abbey

Posted by NightLight on November 14, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Del, I'm sure people who have actually gone through the trauma of being raped don't appreciate your tossing the word around to make a political point.

Posted by del on November 14, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You may be correct, but I was introduced to this author and his quote by one who had been raped in the pre-Wade Vs. Roe days and stand by the statement.

Posted by damary on November 14, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I always wonder why Catholics and other fundamentalists who are adamantly against abortion are not equally adamantly pacifists."

I am, and I think that you will find the pro-life / anti-war position more common amongst Catholics than fundamentalists.

Posted by gramagracie on November 15, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I haven't been a catholic since 1991 the reason "refused to file annulment application" after my divorce. I simply went to a non-denominational church. Every orgainzed religion has their own rules and guidelines...I didn't blame the priest who refused to give me the sacraments...I choose not to continue. I believe in the Bible as the Word of God. I think the catholic church has the right to demand that it's parishioners abide by their rules and guidelines. If you don't like what they stand for go somewhere else. The Bible is pretty much a universal read for all catholic/christian churchs. I believe in pro-life and fully blame the women when they get pregnant and their quick fix is abortion. I don't believe that women should get child support in these cases either. If you are married, had children and divorced than it's okay, but if they were neglectful in using protection than it's on them, that goes for no government aide either. Like the saying goes " you can not thread a needle if the needle keeps moving". If rape or incest occur I feel sorry for these women, but the baby could bring joy to many couples who can't have children of their own. Abortion causes stress and trauma to a women's body but nobody tells them that.

Posted by vcsexplorer11 on November 15, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

damary said,
"There would be a gaping void in this world had you never been born."

Would you say the same for Hitler of Bin Laden?

I think Spock put it best in "Wrath of Khan".
The good of the many outweigh the good of the few.

I would like to know that my children will live in a world with enough food and water and less disease (take a look at Aficia with staving children and diseases that even the pope in the Vatican, living in luxury, does nothing to help).
Oh right, he assigns the poor people to donate, which most don't, accept for a few coins in a jar.

So save your unwanted babies, send them to war to die for no cause, call your death sentence "Supporting our troops", sleep well knowing one day your child or grandchild may die of starvation of worse.

Do I think abortion is good? No, but if this unwanted child (which is not even a child but the religious groups want to say it is) will not have to suffer through such a misable childhood that they will kill or harm other people, then maybe go to church to be forgiven, then I look at it as a helping the good of the many.

Posted by vcsexplorer11 on November 15, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One more thought, again.

Hiltler imposed his will on the population. So, before you go call pro-choice people, like me, baby killers or like Hitler take a look at yourselves.

It's called pro-choice because you have a choice. Have your unwanted babies, it's ok, you have to live with your choice. Hiltler gave no choice, so look in the mirror to find your Hilter. You want to eliminate choice.

Just one thing though. Since it's God will for you to have that child then it's Gods will for you to take care of that child. So work 10 jobs if you have to, just don't look for the taxpayers to be your God.

Posted by bslorence on November 15, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

vcsexplorer11, you said: "The good of the many outweigh the good of the few."

This is textbook utilitarianism -- making moral/ethical decisions based on what one thinks will provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Seems to me that the pro-choice position can be made perfectly reasonable if you accept a utilitarian view of ethics.

But I see some problems with utilitarianism. For example, who decides what is the greatest good? And how do you define "good"? Is it life? Pleasure? A first-world standard of living? And, assuming you've defined "good" well, how do you know that your predictions are correct and that the choice you make will actually tend toward maximizing the good for the greatest number of people?

You might have someone raised in ugly circumstances who goes on to do amazing things and improve many people's lives. And another person might be born into the best of environments and grow up to be a complete stinker. A utilitarian ethic might have consigned the former to abortion while permitting the latter to live.

Life is so complex, and "good" is so multifaceted. Utilitarianism can't really account for these basic facts of existence.

It seems to me that, ironically enough, having some moral absolutes (e.g., abortion is always wrong) actually ends up leaving a lot more room for the complexity of real life.

Posted by vcsexplorer11 on November 15, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bslorence,

Obviously the church and your religious beliefs are your utilitarianistic group that are making the choices for you and your followers.

If a person has a choice then they are following nobody.

As for "The good of the many outweigh the good of the few." it should be choices that everyone can agree on not religious finatics.

Example would be not overpopulating a finite space, but here is the issue. Most people like you don't care or don't have the capacity to understand that the future of a overpopulated planet is destruction.

You said.
"You might have someone raised in ugly circumstances who goes on to do amazing things and improve many people's lives."
I have heard these preaching a million times. Obviuosly HOPE is your only comfort, but hope is for people who don't want to roll up their sleeves and start working. The same idea can be used to say "You might have someone raised in ugly circumstances who goes on to do horrific things"

Since their are people who want a absolute (no abortion at all) this only leads to more absolutes and we will all be sheep who have rich religious (at least acting religious) dictators, like Bush "the decider", to make the decisions for us.

Maybe, if you don't wake up, you will drinking the coolaid or at least a victim of the world you created. Again, abortion is not a good thing, but obviuosly it's the only thing left to control population unless you are looking for Chinas (Overpopulation) solution where choice is gone. It could happen here.

Posted by bslorence on November 15, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

vcsexplorer11, you said:

"Obviously the church and your religious beliefs are your utilitarianistic group that are making the choices for you and your followers."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The point of my previous post was to suggest that utilitarianism is a false moral philosophy. I think we can argue about that without bringing religion into the discussion.

"The same idea can be used to say 'You might have someone raised in ugly circumstances who goes on to do horrific things'."

That's exactly my point. Since we can't know how someone will turn out by simply looking at their circumstances, who is anyone to decide who gets to live and who doesn't?

Why did you bring up overpopulation? Are you suggesting that abortion is an acceptable, if unpleasant, solution to an overpopulation problem?

Let's look at the question of overpopulation. It seems that fertility rates have been plummeting all over the world since the 70s, when overpopulation-scares first got going.

In some parts of Europe the fertility rates have dropped to what demographers are now calling "lowest-low" -- which means that so few children are being born that within a few decades it will be impossible for a population to avoid going out of existence. There was an article about it in June in the New York Times Magazine:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/mag...

Posted by vcsexplorer11 on November 15, 2008 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bslorence,

I will not repeat what I said about overpopulation and abortion but suggest you reread my last post and comment about China and tell me what you think.

Birthrate issues in Europe may have to do with contamination of water or food supplies there, or and number of factors. The US birthrates are 40% larger then Europe. I live in the US. Obviously the US, India, and South America are making up for Europes issues.

Also, Let me get this straight, you don't want me to bring up religion but then say that nobody should decide if someone should live or die.

Who are we talking about dying? Who is this person that you say we are deciding to kill?
I don't understand.

Just like all you comments so far you talk in general and you say "The point of my previous post was to suggest that utilitarianism is a false moral philosophy" and don't explain how you have come to this conclusion.

I never said that I believe in utilitarianism but I also don't believe that one person is better then the many either. Anyway if you comment again try to work past the utilitarianism comments and reply to the rest of what I am saying.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on November 16, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OjaiGuy, Your story was very touching. Enjoy your Grandkids! I was 4 months pregnant when things went wrong with my body and the tests they wanted to perform could harm my baby. I was told I should abort. This came from the Doctors mouth. I refused..... Now I have a great Son 25 years old and a beautiful grand daughter! I am now in good health.....from what I was suffering from. I thank God everyday that I had a healthy pregnancy. And overcame my problem.
Fred ,My belief is yes they are lifes. But once death occurs the spirit leaves the shell. So if Science can help to save others lifes then yes I am for research. Just as an autopsy is done to determine the cause of death. Or someone on life support that donates organs to the living before they are taken off of life support. Just my opinion.

Posted by vcsexplorer11 on November 16, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bslorence,

Since you bring up articles on lower births in Europe lets talk of the real issues here.

Drought and water shortages.

http://whyfiles.org/131fresh_water/2....

and overpopulation:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/...

Then comes war over water:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...

History shows the results of overpopulation and drought:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ne...

So when you say that child who was born could do something good for society, you must be hoping for a god like the Mayans. If I were a gambling man I would say most likly that person born will be this kid:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/1...

who was most likly that unwanted kid. The rest of the unwanted kids may kill you and your family over things as simple as water.

Posted by jimmyd2 on November 16, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.

Mother Theresa

Posted by vcsexplorer11 on November 16, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jimmyd2,

The irony of Mother Theresas statement is kids are dying of poverty (starvation and disease) right now, in many countries, but all the pro-life supporters do little (or nothing) but whine about pro-choice. You don't volunteer like Mother Theresa or use any of your hard earned money to help the starving kids beside a few coins in a jar.
Your hypocrats who support beliefs but not the victims.

Pat yourself on the back as you drive your SUV home from work.

Posted by brown_eyes on November 16, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

vcsexplorer11...do you? Volunteer or give money to the starving children? Some of us do. We practice what we preach. I drive an SUV...I thank God that I can afford it and now..thanks to GOD..gas is cheaper.. Some will call it karma I choose to believe that it is God repaying me back for what I have done for the least of his children. I tithe my 10% and God always provides. I support my beliefs and the victims. You have to realize that these people in the third world countries are governed by corrupt governments. How is that our fault and how does that make us the bad. 10%....can you say you do that. Not only that we give of our time... today's sermon was love thy neighbor but don't forget to begin at home....love thy neighbor is a commandment...not a suggestion.

Posted by jimmyd2 on November 16, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

vcsexplorer11: No,I don't drive an SUV. Yes, I live my faith, I volunteer at and financially contribute to a crisis pregnancy center. If a mother need diapers, formula, housing, furniture there a places for them to turn for help.
Apparently you missed all the articles in the paper about couples desperate to adopt that have to go to third world countries (Romania, China,etc.)to find children. We're too busy killing ours.
Here's another quote for you to ponder:
The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between.
Mother Theresa

Posted by brown_eyes on November 16, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This article, plain and simple, is that the church chooses to deny the sacrament to those who do not abide by the church's rules...not much to argue about here. Either you believe or you don't and if you don't go somewhere else. Many will come to the great I AM but few will make it through the narrow road.

Posted by jimmyd2 on November 16, 2008 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

brown_eyes: I agree. People are confused about what the sacrament of "communion" is in the Catholic church. By receiving it, you are saying you are "in communion" with the beliefs of the faith. When non-Catholics attend a Catholic wedding they are often told that they must be Catholic to participate in communion. It is otherwise a meaningless ritual.
For the Joe Biden's, the Kennnedy's, Pelosi's and others who have bought into the culture of death that includes abortion, receiving communion is meaningless. Thank you to the bishops that have backbone to insist that they are denied that sacrament.

Posted by bombero42 on November 17, 2008 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The church is also against the death penalty and divorce.
Should the church ban communion for legislators who vote for the death penalty? Should they ban it for jurors who vote for the death penalty?
Should they ban it for judges who rule in divorce cases?
See how idiotic it is when religion is injected into politics?

Posted by vcsexplorer11 on November 17, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

jimmyd2,

I said send money to the help the dying kids not volunteer to helping pregnant mothers here. I think that was very clear and clearly you wanted to skate around my statement.

The only reason people go to Romania or China to adopt is to NOT because there is a shortage of kids to adopt here. We both know that is a lie. They want lighter skined or asian kids. Most people adopting are white or light skinned families.

"The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me?"

Look around you, an even in countries where abortion is illegal. There are people murdered for religous reasons just as much as they are killed for others. Also, you are wrong about Abortion being murder (just as Mother Theresa is wrong). And how is abortion the destroyer of peace?

Posted by vcsexplorer11 on November 17, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have a idea that should satisfy both pro-lifers and pro-choice.

If a girl gets pregnant she is not allowed to ask any government organization for support. She will not get a tax exemption either.

There will be exceptions though. Any child that is born because of rape will be supported by pro-lifers through a special "save the children" tax that is placed on pro-lifers taxes. Included will be the money saved from not giving tax exemptions to people with children. Any unwanted children put up for adoption will be supported by the pro-lifer tax also.

Wait, did I just here a "no way" from pro-lifers?
Did they say "thats not fair"?
Life isn't fair, get over it, it's for the greater good, so money should be no object.

I would guarantee if pro-lifers had to register for this tax you would think there was nobody who cared about abortion.

Posted by NightLight on November 17, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vcs, one of the biggest flaws in your grand plan is to not realize one of the most basic principles of "pro-lifers," that all life is precious. A child born of rape is no less precious than a child born of love. Your plan would require children of rape to register as such, and to live their lives being constantly reminded of that. How is that for the greater good? It's sad, but your total lack of respect for the self esteem of the children, and your belief that it's all about money, shows what little understanding you have of what this is all about.

Posted by jimmyd2 on November 17, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

vcsexplorer11 - Here's your Mother Theresa pro-life quote for the day:
"Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child. From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children from abortions. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents, and have grown up so full of love and joy!"
I disagree with you, the reason childles couples go to extreme lengths (in vitro fertization, foreign adoption) for children is because 1 out of 3 pregnancies in this country are "terminated". There is a severe shortage of infant children to adopt.
p.s. I oppose the death penalty too and resent that my taxes pay for it (pro-life means pro-life).

Posted by bombero42 on November 18, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's the truth about Mother Teresa.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/librar...

Posted by jimmyd2 on November 18, 2008 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bombero42:
HITCHENS: "I'm an atheist. I'm not neutral about religion, I'm hostile to it. I think it is a positively bad idea, not just a false one. And I mean not just organized religion, but religious belief itself."
There is a credible source for digging up and publishing dirt on Mother Theresa. Maybe you can regale us with a Ku Klux Klan piece on Barack Obama that we can take to bank as an objective journalistic piece.
Mr. Hitchins seems light on facts (or damning information) which explains why none of this has made it into the mainstream media. He criticizes Mother Theresa for wearing a sari that costs one ruppee and taking the bus to meet the pope. Mr. Hitchins suggests it's all for show and then goes on to offer no proof. What passes for good journalism is Vanity Fair? Maybe he could have gotten published in the Star or National Enquirer by alleging Mother Theresa arrived at the Vatican on an alien space ship.