Obama at Notre Dame

[EasyEd]

May 19, 2009 12:44:22 GMT -5 hoyatables said:

May 19, 2009 12:32:27 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Yep, 150 Texas state executions in FOUR YEARS vs 150 per HOUR executions by abortion. Some comparison. There is also a difference in the Church's positions on abortion and the death penalty. Church's view is abortion is intrinsically wrong, always wrong. As for the death penalty the position is that there appears to be other ways of dealing with great crimes that will prevent the criminal from repeating the crime so we conclude the death penalty is wrong.

I tried to explain the Church's positions on abortion and the death penalty and how she explains the differences in the reasons behind them. You may not like the explanations but they are the Church's explanations, not mine. And, as others have explained, the intrinsic nature of abortion being wrong applies just as much to rape and incest as to any other cause of the pregnancy. As for contraception being a means of preventing abortion, that's the subject of another time but it is not. It is a means of preventing pregnancy, not abortion. Some means of contraception are actually abortions themselves.

Ed, I expect better from you.

For one, I thought that abortion was intrinsically wrong because all life is sacred. If that's the case then why isn't death penalty intrinsically wrong because "all life is sacred"?

And furthermore, I would argue that Jesus's teachings argue just as strongly for mercy and forgiveness of criminals, as well as offering them the chance to seek their own forgiveness and redemption.

Finally, I did find your observation that the death penalty is wrong "because there are other ways of dealing with great crimes and to prevent the criminal from repeating the crime." Of course, there are other ways to prevent abortions, too (hint -- contraception!) -- but the Church is woefully out of step on that issue.

I completely understand the Church's position on abortion (agreement or not, notwithstanding). But I find the Church's position on contraception to be somewhat shameful and stubborn for the sake of stubbornness.

[SFHoya99]

So I'm alright with God if it's only 150 people? What's the cutoff, ed?

[EasyEd]

May 19, 2009 14:47:54 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

So I'm alright with God if it's only 150 people? What's the cutoff, ed?

You're missing the point, perhaps intentionally. The church regards abortion as being intrinsically wrong, always wrong, no matter the circumstances. The church does not regard some other forms of killing as intrinsically wrong, for instance it has a long history of what comprises a just war and what does not. So, killing in war is not intrinsically wrong. In the church's view, it depends on the circumstances. The church has also long recognized that killing in self defense is not intrinsically wrong, due to the circumstances. The same with the death penalty. It does not say it is intrinsically wrong; it says it is wrong under the circumstances, the circumstances being there are other ways of keeping the criminal "off the streets".

Furthermore, I believe this discussion initially concerned why there was a protest for Obama's and not Bush's address at Notre Dame. Is it inconceivable to you that protests would be more likely in the event 5 million people had been killed in 4 years rather than 152?

[TC]

May 19, 2009 15:28:45 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Furthermore, I believe this discussion initially concerned why there was a protest for Obama's and not Bush's address at Notre Dame. Is it inconceivable to you that protests would be more likely in the event 5 million people had been killed in 4 years rather than 152?

It's more likely that there was no protest because the same people favor or are ambivalent towards capital punishment even though the church teaches differently.

Anyway, I highly recommend the ASU speech - I really liked the Kurt Warner/Winston Churchill/Julia Child/Colonel Sanders/Thomas Paine part :

www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/13/obama-asu-speech-full-tex_n_203287.html

[Cambridge]

May 19, 2009 15:28:45 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

May 19, 2009 14:47:54 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

So I'm alright with God if it's only 150 people? What's the cutoff, ed?

You're missing the point, perhaps intentionally. The church regards abortion as being intrinsically wrong, always wrong, no matter the circumstances. The church does not regard some other forms of killing as intrinsically wrong, for instance it has a long history of what comprises a just war and what does not. So, killing in war is not intrinsically wrong. In the church's view, it depends on the circumstances. The church has also long recognized that killing in self defense is not intrinsically wrong, due to the circumstances. The same with the death penalty. It does not say it is intrinsically wrong; it says it is wrong under the circumstances, the circumstances being there are other ways of keeping the criminal "off the streets".

Furthermore, I believe this discussion initially concerned why there was a protest for Obama's and not Bush's address at Notre Dame. Is it inconceivable to you that protests would be more likely in the event 5 million people had been killed in 4 years rather than 152?

I'll come at this from another angle - where is the practice discussed in the Bible? Where is the scriptural basis for life beginning at conception? Basically, at its core, what is the Church basing their dogma on? I read the Bible as an incredibly bloody book with little regard for life, born or unborn* - so where exactly is this belief stemming from?

* I'm basing this mainly on the Old Testament.

[Boz]

I'm certainly no scholar on the subject, but just a quick search will tell you that actually there are references in the Bible -- Old Testament references as well -- to the Lord calling children to Him in the womb, so yes, the Bible does speak of life existing before children are actually born.

But it's not a biology text, you know, and it was written quite some time ago, so if you are looking for specific references to "conception" or "first trimester," or terms like that, no that's not going to be in there. I think the meaning is pretty clear nevertheless.

Of course, there is also a pretty good scientific case for life beginning at conception.

[lightbulbbandit]

May 19, 2009 16:03:25 GMT -5 Boz said:

I'm certainly no scholar on the subject, but just a quick search will tell you that actually there are references in the Bible -- Old Testament references as well -- to the Lord calling children to Him in the womb, so yes, the Bible does speak of life existing before children are actually born.

But it's not a biology text, you know, and it was written quite some time ago, so if you are looking for specific references to "conception" or "first trimester," or terms like that, no that's not going to be in there. I think the meaning is pretty clear nevertheless.

Of course, there is also a pretty good scientific case for life beginning at conception.

I am always interested in the religious role in the abortion debate, for a lot of reasons.

"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." (Jeremiah 1:5.)

So if we take this statement, what does it mean for when life begins? Before even being formed in the womb God knew me, so God knew me and cared about me before my conception? I have always struggled and wondered about the role of that notion in a Christian's view of abortion.

[Bando]

May 19, 2009 16:03:25 GMT -5 Boz said:

I'm certainly no scholar on the subject, but just a quick search will tell you that actually there are references in the Bible -- Old Testament references as well -- to the Lord calling children to Him in the womb, so yes, the Bible does speak of life existing before children are actually born.

But it's not a biology text, you know, and it was written quite some time ago, so if you are looking for specific references to "conception" or "first trimester," or terms like that, no that's not going to be in there. I think the meaning is pretty clear nevertheless.

Of course, there is also a pretty good scientific case for life beginning at conception.

But I think we've gone over this before. No one's arguing that a zygote isn't alive, but instead whether it has moral personhood. It's an ethical debate, not a scientific one.

[SFHoya99]

May 19, 2009 15:28:45 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

May 19, 2009 14:47:54 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

So I'm alright with God if it's only 150 people? What's the cutoff, ed?

You're missing the point, perhaps intentionally. The church regards abortion as being intrinsically wrong, always wrong, no matter the circumstances. The church does not regard some other forms of killing as intrinsically wrong, for instance it has a long history of what comprises a just war and what does not. So, killing in war is not intrinsically wrong. In the church's view, it depends on the circumstances. The church has also long recognized that killing in self defense is not intrinsically wrong, due to the circumstances. The same with the death penalty. It does not say it is intrinsically wrong; it says it is wrong under the circumstances, the circumstances being there are other ways of keeping the criminal "off the streets".

Furthermore, I believe this discussion initially concerned why there was a protest for Obama's and not Bush's address at Notre Dame. Is it inconceivable to you that protests would be more likely in the event 5 million people had been killed in 4 years rather than 152?

No, I get the point. I understand the relativity between the two and totally get it.

But 150 people is quite a few. I don't think the church is condoning those executions -- and quite a few were of innocent men, I bet.

So just trying to figure out where the cutoff is for speaking at Notre Dame for you? This isn't a "lesser of two evils situation" -- allowing NEITHER is a choice here (or allowing both). At what level does legally condoning murder would you allow a man to speak at a school? If you were President of GU or Notre Dame, would Bush be allowed to speak?

I get why you think abortion is worse than capital punishment. Just curious where the line is drawn for you?

[hoyatables]

May 19, 2009 14:06:20 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I tried to explain the Church's positions on abortion and the death penalty and how she explains the differences in the reasons behind them. You may not like the explanations but they are the Church's explanations, not mine. And, as others have explained, the intrinsic nature of abortion being wrong applies just as much to rape and incest as to any other cause of the pregnancy. As for contraception being a means of preventing abortion, that's the subject of another time but it is not. It is a means of preventing pregnancy, not abortion. Some means of contraception are actually abortions themselves.

Fair enough Ed. And my response was really directed at the explanations themselves. Agree that contraception does not prevent abortion per se, but it also directly prevents pregnancies, which can lead to possibility of seeking an abortion. And there are plenty of reliable forms of contraception that operate pre-conception.

I also recognize your point about the 150 or so executions versus the larger number of abortions. Of course, let's not also forget that the character of the individuals killed -- criminals versus fetuses -- plays a role here. It's a lot harder to speak up to save the life of a criminal. Of course, it should also be noted that Bush had a more direct relationship with those executions -- and he had the direct ability to halt or prevent their deaths. Obama's powers to prevent abortions are indirect at best (and it is arguable whether a change in the law would really prevent them or not).

I do think we can all agree that in a perfect world we would not have to face either of these issues.

[EasyEd]

SF, if I were a Catholic university president I would allow Bush to speak and to receive an honorary degree because he did not violate an intrinsic evil and because he appointed Supreme Court justices who will probably have views consistent with avoiding the intrinsic evils of abortion. I would, however, also invite Bush to an open discussion where true anti-death penalty advocates had the freedom to ask questions of Bush, with followup questions and where they had the freedom to voice their opposition and the reasons thereof. I would not invite Obama to speak nor to receive an honorary degree because he strongly advocates (as evidenced by his actions to date) the intrinsic evils of abortion in all its forms. I would, however, invite Obama to an open discussion where pro-life advocates had the freedom to ask questions and follow up questions and to argue their views of pro-life issues.

Having said this, I repeat that I am a strong opponent of the death penalty.

And, Bando, your argument about when personhood begins is one we have argued about in the past. It's a cop-out because you choose, in this one case, to ignore science which tells you that, from the moment of conception, every human characteristic is already defined via the DNA. You introduce the notion of not knowing when personhood begins because it makes things subjective and impossible to prove you are right or wrong. Sorry but it smells like you don't like what the data are telling you so you invent something that fits your preconceived beliefs.

[EasyEd]

One of the products of abortion and contraception is the fact that the world is fast becoming a Muslim world.

www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

[SFHoya99]

May 19, 2009 18:51:02 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

SF, if I were a Catholic university president I would allow Bush to speak and to receive an honorary degree because he did not violate an intrinsic evil and because he appointed Supreme Court justices who will probably have views consistent with avoiding the intrinsic evils of abortion. I would, however, also invite Bush to an open discussion where true anti-death penalty advocates had the freedom to ask questions of Bush, with followup questions and where they had the freedom to voice their opposition and the reasons thereof. I would not invite Obama to speak nor to receive an honorary degree because he strongly advocates (as evidenced by his actions to date) the intrinsic evils of abortion in all its forms. I would, however, invite Obama to an open discussion where pro-life advocates had the freedom to ask questions and follow up questions and to argue their views of pro-life issues.

Having said this, I repeat that I am a strong opponent of the death penalty.

And, Bando, your argument about when personhood begins is one we have argued about in the past. It's a cop-out because you choose, in this one case, to ignore science which tells you that, from the moment of conception, every human characteristic is already defined via the DNA. You introduce the notion of not knowing when personhood begins because it makes things subjective and impossible to prove you are right or wrong. Sorry but it smells like you don't like what the data are telling you so you invent something that fits your preconceived beliefs.

So, yeah, it's okay to be complicit in the killing of some people, and some innocent people, as long as it isn't a lot of them.

Got it.

[Buckets]

May 19, 2009 19:03:15 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

One of the products of abortion and contraception is the fact that the world is fast becoming a Muslim world.

www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

I normally only observe the B&G board since I'm not as well versed as most, but I felt compelled to comment. I guess since post hoc ergo propter hoc isn't written into the Bible or any papal decrees so you can just completely ignore it right? And that doesn't even begin to get at the implicit xenophobia in your statement.

Furthermore,

May 19, 2009 14:06:20 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

As for contraception being a means of preventing abortion, that's the subject of another time but it is not. It is a means of preventing pregnancy, not abortion.

No. I can elaborate more later, but if you don't think that some people use condoms to prevent having to deal with the emotional pain (not to mention everything else that comes with it) of getting an abortion, then you are wrong.

[Boz]

Could we stop this thread now?

Because I'm getting pretty sick of seeing ads for that crappy school in South Bend at the top of the page.

[jerseyhoya34]

I have to say that Ed admirably takes a lot of heat on these boards, and it is commendable that he keeps coming back for seconds. His views, while controversial, have been given a lot of print on here for all to examine and debate, so hats off to him for helping to stimulate the debate.

My general viewpoint on this debate (and the homosexual marriage debate) vis-a-vis so-called religious arguments is that the so-called religious arguments will always mirror what is sought politically. In the marriage debate, the end point for so-called religious voters is not at the defeat of homosexual marriage amendments or elimination of pro-gay jurists from the bench. Before this brouhaha was the DOMA political actions, which affirmatively restricted the rights of homosexual couples. My question is what would happen if all 50 states passed DOMA legislation, would the issue simply go away? My response is no. Next step would be elimination of civil unions because apparently certain so-called religious beliefs trump "treat others how you wish to be treated" or "love thy neighbor [except when he/she is gay]." Next step would be for the PACs to support blocking of judges who interpret the Constitution rather than the Constitution with religious texts. In the end, I suspect that most self-identified strongly religious voters would oppose not only homosexual marriage but civil unions and perhaps even same-sex couples living together. This polling anyway (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=290) gives you evangelical opposition to homosexual marriage and civil unions. Pew apparently did not ask about same sex households.

While I think SF's death penalty example is apt, I would bring up the Iraq War example, particularly since it is now evident that religious study/practices were cover material on some sensitive military briefing/planning. Tens of thousands have now been killed, wounded, and/or maimed, including US soliders, coalition soldiers, Iraqi civilians, Baathists, et al. Still more have been subjected to primitive interrogation techniques, whih many people refer to as torture. I dug up this polling, published on that liberal rag US News' website - www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/04/30/poll-most-evangelicals-and-catholics-condone-torture-in-some-instances.html. The support of "torture" among evangelicals and Catholics is startling, and I suspect opinions on the IWR were no different. We now have a pile of sand, a patchwork government, and some army bases to show for this war, yet there does not seem to be much mainstream religious opposition to it. Just war arguments (and pro-life arguments) are there but don't seem to have voice from the mainstream churches on this significant issue.

The abortion issue is another one where the line will be redrawn if so-called religious voters manage to get Roe v. Wade repealed. There will be efforts to pass new legislation to outlaw abortion. Then, there'd probably be a greater push to amend the Constitution to reflect the religious opinion that human life however defined begins at conception. Stem cells is a related debate. I have never seen so vigorous an opposition waged by apparently rational folks over scientific research on so-called human life that would otherwise be destroyed by their professional custodians. In the end, I wonder whether the next frontier would be "potential life" (i.e. would folks have to avoid flushing the toilet for fear of killing sperm/eggs that might otherwise be fertilized were it not for this routine biological function).

The other issue that I have is where all of a sudden Obama turns in to some sort of sponsor of "intrinsic evil" given his statements indicating that he wants to minimize the exercise by women of their legal right to an abortion and wants to support services, including Catholic-sponsored ones, that help to achieve this goal. Obama is at best indirect in this. He does not make choices as to whether mothers seek abortions, and he does not perform the abortions. He can appoint judges who interpret the Constitution/apply the law mostly in cases that have yet to be brought. and only has an inkling as to how they might decide cases from how they have done so in the past Without dragging on too long, I think we can do better than to label Obama as a supporter of "intrinsic evil" just as terms like "war criminal" and the like were bemoaned on the right.

My puzzlement is only magnified by the abject failure of so-called religious groups on the right wing to condemn Dick Cheney for raising a lesbian child and Governor Pailin for raising a child who got pregnant out of wedlock. Not that I would support either attack, but the lack of sustained fire from the right in these and other situations is telling if not bewildering. These were two situations of known, apparent and clear discord with the accepted views of most evangelicals, and the silence was deafening.

I will close these ramblings with a question - what would Obama have to do in order to not be considered a supporter of intrinsic evil in the minds of evangelical voters? Give us the laundry list short of commuting the sentences of killers of abortion clinic personnel, at least one of whom is a domestic terrorist,* where evangelicals would pack up and go home on these issues.

*Surely these reprehensible acts were opposed with the same vigor among evangelicals as "liberal" judges are.

[GIGAFAN99]

May 19, 2009 16:46:10 GMT -5 Bando said:

May 19, 2009 16:03:25 GMT -5 Boz said:

I'm certainly no scholar on the subject, but just a quick search will tell you that actually there are references in the Bible -- Old Testament references as well -- to the Lord calling children to Him in the womb, so yes, the Bible does speak of life existing before children are actually born.

But it's not a biology text, you know, and it was written quite some time ago, so if you are looking for specific references to "conception" or "first trimester," or terms like that, no that's not going to be in there. I think the meaning is pretty clear nevertheless.

Of course, there is also a pretty good scientific case for life beginning at conception.

But I think we've gone over this before. No one's arguing that a zygote isn't alive, but instead whether it has moral personhood. It's an ethical debate, not a scientific one.

Kind of.

I say this because my thoughts are generally:

Morally wrong (denies a future which is really the measure of a moral human)

Politically allowed (The rights of the sentient and/or rational mother supersedes that of the protectors and/or fetus)

Judicially incorrect (Roe v. Wade oversteps the bounds of the supreme court)

Convoluted but I'm pro-choice legally, anti-abortion morally, and think Roe is a poorly decided supreme court decision. Hey you can't win them all. I like political freedom, moral correctness, and the constituition. I'll live.

[Bando]

And, Bando, your argument about when personhood begins is one we have argued about in the past. It's a cop-out because you choose, in this one case, to ignore science which tells you that, from the moment of conception, every human characteristic is already defined via the DNA. You introduce the notion of not knowing when personhood begins because it makes things subjective and impossible to prove you are right or wrong. Sorry but it smells like you don't like what the data are telling you so you invent something that fits your preconceived beliefs.

I can only conclude from this that you didn't read a goddamned word I wrote. I'm not denying a zygote are alive things (I will deny that "every human characteristic" is simply DNA, but that's another matter). I know you're jonesing to say that "science proves my morals right", but in truth your opinion on the matter isn't based on that either. Both sides are arguing over where the line is drawn when it comes to deciding whether something is to be morally considered a person. You say at conception, I disagree, but neither of is arguing whether something is alive or dead, except maybe the strawmen you seem to prefer to argue with.

Kind of.

I say this because my thoughts are generally:

Morally wrong (denies a future which is really the measure of a moral human)

Politically allowed (The rights of the sentient and/or rational mother supersedes that of the protectors and/or fetus)

Judicially incorrect (Roe v. Wade oversteps the bounds of the supreme court)

You're right, there are more dimensions to this, but all of them involve philosophical and moral criteria, not a simple alive/dead standard that ed seems to think this is all about.

Could we stop this thread now?

Because I'm getting pretty sick of seeing ads for that crappy school in South Bend at the top of the page.

Yeah, this is annoying me as well. Let me see if I can help: topless beer video games

[Coast2CoastHoya]

May 19, 2009 18:51:02 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

SF, if I were a Catholic university president I would allow Bush to speak and to receive an honorary degree because he did not violate an intrinsic evil and because he appointed Supreme Court justices who will probably have views consistent with avoiding the intrinsic evils of abortion. I would, however, also invite Bush to an open discussion where true anti-death penalty advocates had the freedom to ask questions of Bush, with followup questions and where they had the freedom to voice their opposition and the reasons thereof. I would not invite Obama to speak nor to receive an honorary degree because he strongly advocates (as evidenced by his actions to date) the intrinsic evils of abortion in all its forms. I would, however, invite Obama to an open discussion where pro-life advocates had the freedom to ask questions and follow up questions and to argue their views of pro-life issues.

Having said this, I repeat that I am a strong opponent of the death penalty.

And, Bando, your argument about when personhood begins is one we have argued about in the past. It's a cop-out because you choose, in this one case, to ignore science which tells you that, from the moment of conception, every human characteristic is already defined via the DNA. You introduce the notion of not knowing when personhood begins because it makes things subjective and impossible to prove you are right or wrong. Sorry but it smells like you don't like what the data are telling you so you invent something that fits your preconceived beliefs.

Bush ordered an unjust, unsupported-by-evidence war that has so far resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands and the maiming of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS. Obama may support pro-choice in speech, but has no authority over the decisions of women to abort or not abort, not as president, not as senator, not as community organizer, and has -- as far as we know -- not administered, ordered, or overseen one single pregnancy termination. You say 5 million? I say zero as far as the comparison is concerned. To conflate the two, and to make the distinction you make above, is specious at best and willfully dishonest at worst.

*On EDIT (and after reading it all), what The Ambassador said.

[EasyEd]

A letter to the editor responding to "reducing the number of abortions"

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/20/AR2009052003361_2.html