Obama to speak at Notre Dame

[BGIF]

Would ND have invited Adolf Hitler to speak at commencment in the name of diversity? So why now lower our moral compass in order to have a man who supports the American genocide (aportion) speak at the University?

Hitler? That's junior high school level debating Frank.

If Hitler was President of the United States, then it would germaine to the conversation. And if he was POTUS, an ND invite would be appropriate.

Staying with your extremist viewpoint if he had spoken on a national platform in the U.S. in the 30's his mind probably wouldn't have changed but millions of Americans might not have needed Pearl Harbor to wake up. At the least the Bund would have lost American support a lot sooner.

U.S. President's that have spoken at ND are:
George W. Bush
George H.W.Bush
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Regan
John Kennedy
Dwight Eishenhower

Do you really want to evaluate the morale compass of that group Frank?

And for hypocrisy need we delve deeper than JFK being awarded the Laetare Medal. Church on Sunday and tootsie every noon before and after he was married. Gotta admire an equal opportunity adulterer. Refresh me Frank on the Church's position on Adultery.

 

[BGIF]

The death penalty and war are both supported by the Bible. ...

Psst, Frank. So is abortion. See Numbers Chapter 5. It even describes the process.

 

[BGIF]

... There is a lot of hypocrisy on this issue. A young wonan in my state just got several years in prison for throwing her baby in a trash can when he was born; however, if she had visited an abortion clinic, even a few days earlier-according to people like Obama, she would be using her 'right to choose." I guess these people feel that she does not have a right to choose when she threw her unwanted child in the trash. If I was her lawyer I would have used the argument that even our President agrees women have a right to choose what they want to do with their children.

Frank, I agree there is a lot of hyopcrisy on this issue. Let's start with your "scenario".

Your state bans abortion in the 3rd trimester, doesn't it? So how would "even a few days earlier" make a difference? Your misrepresenting your state law, aren't you?

And I've never met nor read of anyone who was pro-choice that condoned, accepted or advocated throwing a born baby in the trash.

 

[FrankMA]

Frank, I agree there is a lot of hyopcrisy on this issue. Let's start with your "scenario".

Your state bans abortion in the 3rd trimester, doesn't it? So how would "even a few days earlier" make a difference? Your misrepresenting your state law, aren't you?

And I've never met nor read of anyone who was pro-choice that condoned, accepted or advocated throwing a born baby in the trash.

Yes it would be illegal in this state; however, my point is that in the eyes of someone like Obama, who even favors partial birth abortions, and even supported letting babies die who were found alive in trash cans because of botched abortions, she could have went a few days earlier to an abortion mill and everything would have been all right. The baby was just as much alive in the womb as in the trash can. The hyprocacy is that people try to make a distinction between the womb and the trash can to justify killing the baby.

 

[BGIF]

This is what happens during off-season and recruiting is slow...

Now when your pissed do you dance?

Tread lightly, jason. Rumor has it she can write her name in the snow with no hands.

 

[FrankMA]

Psst, Frank. So is abortion. See Numbers Chapter 5. It even describes the process.

Sorry. I read Numbers Chapter 5-no mention of abortion.

 

[Quinntastic]

Tread lightly, jason. Rumor has it she can write her name in the snow with no hands.

 

[FrankMA]

U.S. President's that have spoken at ND are:
George W. Bush
George H.W.Bush
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Regan
John Kennedy
Dwight Eishenhower

Do you really want to evaluate the morale compass of that group Frank?

And for hypocrisy need we delve deeper than JFK being awarded the Laetare Medal. Church on Sunday and tootsie every noon before and after he was married. Gotta admire an equal opportunity adulterer. Refresh me Frank on the Church's position on Adultery.

As far as I know, JFK never publicly endorsed adultery or enen publicly admitted to it. Things may have been different then.
I have a better idea, let's have Michael Vick as the speaker. He only killed a few dogs because they were not good fighters. I am sure there would be no uproar from people then. Wrong, the same people who think it is ok to kill babies would be out speaking out and demonstrating in force over a dog killer. Fr. Jenkins could still use his same argument, we want to have a dialogue with these people to win them over.

 

[Bubba]

Wow, a Michael Vick/Barack Obama comparison. While you may think he should be, Obama is not a convicted felon. These outrageous comparisons do nothing to improve your credibility. I understand your opposition to him based on his abortion stance. And, as Quinny has mentioned, no one is going to change your mind. But, you must see that you will not change anyone's mind with this type of comparison. Don't you?

FWIW, Your quick dismissal fo BGIF's JFK reference makes me think you choose which issues of the Catholic Church are important to you and which are not. Marriage is a sacrament which is of great importance in the Church. Why would you dismiss it so quickly? You can't tell me you really believe JFK was not having an affair? If you can, I think you choose to believe what you want.

 

[tgolden]

actually some people (the people who hate vick) would probably be even angrier because to them, killing dogs is the worst thing in the world.

and I don't think a former NFL QB quite compares to the POTUS in terms of giving a commencement address... nice try though.

 

[BGIF]

Sorry. I read Numbers Chapter 5-no mention of abortion.

Strange that they provide instructions for the morning after pill of 20 centuries past. Abortifacient is obvious even to a casual observer, Frank. Or did you think they were talking about somebody defiling the seeds from her tomato garden?

 

[FrankMA]

Wow, a Michael Vick/Barack Obama comparison. While you may think he should be, Obama is not a convicted felon. These outrageous comparisons do nothing to improve your credibility. I understand your opposition to him based on his abortion stance. And, as Quinny has mentioned, no one is going to change your mind. But, you must see that you will not change anyone's mind with this type of comparison. Don't you?

FWIW, Your quick dismissal fo BGIF's JFK reference makes me think you choose which issues of the Catholic Church are important to you and which are not. Marriage is a sacrament which is of great importance in the Church. Why would you dismiss it so quickly? You can't tell me you really believe JFK was not having an affair? If you can, I think you choose to believe what you want.

I am not dismissing what JFK did. I am stating that what he did was in private and unknown to those who gave him the honor at ND. If it was public knowledge, they probable would not have honored him! I am not supporting what he did and I don't think anyone else would have.

 

[BGIF]

... I think you choose to believe what you want.

THAT, Frank has documented well.

 

[FrankMA]

Wow, a Michael Vick/Barack Obama comparison. While you may think he should be, Obama is not a convicted felon. These outrageous comparisons do nothing to improve your credibility. I understand your opposition to him based on his abortion stance. And, as Quinny has mentioned, no one is going to change your mind. But, you must see that you will not change anyone's mind with this type of comparison. Don't you?

FWIW, Your quick dismissal fo BGIF's JFK reference makes me think you choose which issues of the Catholic Church are important to you and which are not. Marriage is a sacrament which is of great importance in the Church. Why would you dismiss it so quickly? You can't tell me you really believe JFK was not having an affair? If you can, I think you choose to believe what you want.

One thinks he should have the choice to kill his dogs, lets say he was President. The other thinks he should have the chioce to kill babies. I wonder which one would get the most negative reaction if he were invited to speak. That is the point I am making.

 

[FrankMA]

Wow, a Michael Vick/Barack Obama comparison. While you may think he should be, Obama is not a convicted felon. These outrageous comparisons do nothing to improve your credibility. I understand your opposition to him based on his abortion stance. And, as Quinny has mentioned, no one is going to change your mind. But, you must see that you will not change anyone's mind with this type of comparison. Don't you?

One is a convicted felon because he used his choice to kill dogs, the other believes people should have a choice to kill babies. Which one do you think is more immoral, is killing babies or killing dogs, in your beliefs? In the Notre Dame, Catholic, and Christian beliefs, niether would be right. That is the point we are discussing here.

 

[Quinntastic]

One actually killed the dogs - and one just believes in a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. There's a huge difference there.

President Obama never aborted a baby himself - whereas Michael Vick fought and murdered dogs himself.

There is a difference between supporting a cause and doing the deed yourself.

How can you say that's not a difference?

 

[jason_h537]

A start would be for the SOB to explain his involvement with or denounce the terrorist Bill Ayers.

And as I've said in the past, if Bush and Cheney are guilty of breaking the law then try them as traitors. The rule of law first.

Obama helped Ayers plan the pentagon attack. He is such an evil man that at 6 years old he was running with terrorists. Bush and Cheney will never be tried, just like NIxon was pardoned for what he did, and it is not that they broke the laws, they used the fear and fallout of 9/11 to their advantage as far as military action andpassing bills in front of congress

 

[jason_h537]

Yes it would be illegal in this state; however, my point is that in the eyes of someone like Obama, who even favors partial birth abortions, and even supported letting babies die who were found alive in trash cans because of botched abortions, she could have went a few days earlier to an abortion mill and everything would have been all right. The baby was just as much alive in the womb as in the trash can. The hyprocacy is that people try to make a distinction between the womb and the trash can to justify killing the baby.

Dude you have a missconceptuion of Obama's stance and have decided to create a monster based on things you have heard. He does not condone abortion or goes around chopping fetus's heads off for fun. He belives a woman has the right to decide to have an abortion if she so chooses to. That is it. He is much more supportive of educating children so that they can either choose to abstain from sex or at least be more aware of how to protect themselves from STD's and pregnancy. Obama is a man who talks about personal responsibilty and has frequently spoke of the high pregnancy rate in this country and ways to bring it down so that abortion can become less of an issue.

 

[jason_h537]

One is a convicted felon because he used his choice to kill dogs, the other believes people should have a choice to kill babies. Which one do you think is more immoral, is killing babies or killing dogs, in your beliefs? In the Notre Dame, Catholic, and Christian beliefs, niether would be right. That is the point we are discussing here.

Yes and Notre Dame has also honered Presidents who kill adults by death penalty, and support it publicly, even though the church has taken a stnace against it.

 

[tgolden]

Excellent speeches by both Obama and Fr. Jenkins.

Congrats to the Class of 2009. We Are ND!

 

[FrankMA]

One actually killed the dogs - and one just believes in a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. There's a huge difference there.

President Obama never aborted a baby himself - whereas Michael Vick fought and murdered dogs himself.

There is a difference between supporting a cause and doing the deed yourself.

How can you say that's not a difference?

Since people should have a right to choose to kill their children then certainly you believe a person should have a right to choose to kill his own dogs? Certainly you don't make that distiction do you? you don't think dogs are more important than people? Or are you one of those kill the babies and save the whales liberals?
Shouldn't Obama pardon Mike Vick and apolgize to him for having laws against his right to choose?

 

[Quinntastic]

...

 

[ACamp1900]

yep... I am done here... this thread sickens me,...

I am done as a mod on this site... that much is official

anyone interested in a mod spot should drop a line...

 

[ACamp1900]

Pretty insulting that Obama mentioned Cardinal Bernadin in his speech prasing the late Cardinal.

Cardinal Bernadin was a huge heretic and facilitator of pederasry and child molestation by scores of homosexuals and pedophiles who infiltrated the priesthood.

Obama basically insultd everyone's intelligence by praising him there.

He often insults those with intellgence... as does Pelosi... as did Bush... as did Clinton... nothing new here... talk to the moron majority... screw those who see through you

 

[MirageSmack]

The truth about abortions is this - even if they're outlawed, it's not going to stop them from occurring. Instead of girls being able to go to competent doctors who can do an abortion in a safe, sterile setting and keep an eye out for infections, etc - girls will be forced to resort to use coat hangers, etc and run the risk of some serious infections.

Being pro-choice isn't being pro-abortion (I'm against partial birth abortions, for what it's worth), being pro-choice is saying that it's none of the government's business what a woman does with her body - and that a scared young girl should be able to go to a doctor she trusts to have a serious medical procedure like that done instead of having to resort to metal coat hangers.

Outlawing abortions isn't going to stop them from happening - it's going to make it more dangerous to do so - which isn't in ANYONE'S best interest. Period.

He is kinda extreme though in his views, like wanting 9th month abortions. I guess you decide on your due date - "Do I want this kid or not?" That's a bit much for me. Most pro abortionist don't even want that.

Then making the gov't pay for all abortions? Or not allowing doctors to use ultrasound or x-rays before abortions, saying it's a pressure tactic, or allowing kids of any age (9 or 10) an abortion free of parental consent. These are his views. How many other procedures do women have something physically removed form their body w/o an xray? So why not pay to have men snipped too, it does the same thing? Why should I pay for some kid(s) who decide to get laid and not have a moments thought of the outcome, or take any measure to not get pregnant? In my lifetime, I think we as a society will being paying billions just to correct others mistakes, and zero to prevent the problem from occuring. Such as abstinence programs, which most schools refuse to dicuss now.

On the other hand though, I see folks that probably should have just killed their kids in the womb instead of what they are doing to them as parents. So I see both sides.

I talked to a lot of women before Roe vs Wade about abortion. Zero of thm said they used or knew someone who used a coat hanger or a Mexican to remove a fetus. Talk about laughable scare tactics, that's one right there. In reality, it will all be done with a little pill in the future. And we can argue that one when the time comes.

 

[ACamp1900]

He is kinda extreme though in his views, like wanting 9th month abortions. I guess you decide on your due date - "Do I want this kid or not?" That's a bit much for me. Most pro abortionist don't even want that.

Then making the gov't pay for all abortions? Or not allowing doctors to use ultrasound or x-rays before abortions, saying it's a pressure tactic, or allowing kids of any age (9 or 10) an abortion free of parental consent. These are his views. How many other procedures do women have something physically removed form their body w/o an xray? So why not pay to have men snipped too, it does the same thing? Why should I pay for some kid(s) who decide to get laid and not have a moments thought of the outcome, or take any measure to not get pregnant? In my lifetime, I think we as a society will being paying billions just to correct others mistakes, and zero to prevent the problem from occuring. Such as abstinence programs, which most schools refuse to dicuss now.

On the other hand though, I see folks that probably should have just killed their kids in the womb instead of what they are doing to them as parents. So I see both sides.

I talked to a lot of women before Roe vs Wade about abortion. Zero of thm said they used or knew someone who used a coat hanger or a Mexican to remove a fetus. Talk about laughable scare tactics, that's one right there. In reality, it will all be done with a little pill in the future. And we can argue that one when the time comes.

completely agree... especially with the paying for others mistakes part... I respect persoanl freedoms but NO ONE... no one!! has the RIGHT to have their problems fixed on someone else's dime without the person picking up the check having a say in the matter... I don't care if we are talking about health care or abortion or welfare... saying it is someone's RIGHT to waste someone else's money... again, people can't see that and it sickens me...

 

[MirageSmack]

Was anyone actually there? I'm hoping ND did not do what Georgetown did when he spoke there, and cover all the crosses on the buildings and on podiums. The administration said they would be offensive to some folks. I sure hope we didn't do that, that would sadden me a great deal.

 

[FrankMA]

Uh, last time I checked, murder is illegal in this country. Whether it's your children or your dogs or your neighbor - it's all murder if you kill them. The debate on the whole abortion issue is more of "When do the developing cells become a child". Some believe it is at conception - HOWEVER, I would disagree. At conception you have TWO cells. THAT is not a child in my view.

I don't see fetuses as "children" until the heart and lungs are at least halfway developed (about the third trimester). Until then, I don't see them as children - I see them as developing cells on their way to becoming a child. When you've got a cluster of cells the size of the tip of your pen - those cells do not have rights. When the cells start specializing and becoming heart tissue and lung tissue and whatnot, you're getting closer to those cells deserving rights. When you have a fetus that's close to full term that could survive on its own if delivered right then - YES that fetus has rights to be protected. Until that point: my view is NO they don't.

So no - until that happens, they're not children, and women should have a right to choose up until that point.

It's funny - I wonder what you'd think if you had a tumor growing on your penis that would become a child in 9 months but the government told you that you couldn't have it taken off because the tumor has rights in 9 months as a child.

So it is murder to kill animals. Then you are a vegitarian and would not think of wearing leather shoes. Thats cool I guess. Me personally, I like a good steak once in a while.
Anyway, I understand your views on a fetus. Back to the point of this whole thread, Notre Dame, The Catholic Church, and Christians have a different view on what is a baby then you do. The discussion is about Notre Dame's decision to have a man who, in their eyes and mine, not yours, speak on their campus and hold those views. A man who nots only holds that different view but also wants to punish doctors and others who will not perofrm abortions as a matter of concience because they hold Notre Dames Catholic beliefs.
Since the deed is done-I guess it is time to drop the discussion and go on to other things. I hope you enjoy your salad this evening.

 

[notredomer23]

sigh

 

[notredomer23]

I regress, considering how wrong some people are in here