Politics | November 11, 2008 | 40 comments

Catholic bishops plan to forcefully confront Obama

Image
IMMININT
I personally believe patrial birth abortion is atrocious and should never be considered by any means. There is no possible way that you can even use the excuse of "the mother's life is in danger" w/ modern technology.

Partial birth abortion is killing the baby flat-out and I believe this is the only issue I have a quarrel with Obama about.

What does everyone else think? Should a 8-9 month old baby be killed while being delivered?
  1. groups:
    Politics,   WTF,   Religion
  2. tags:
    Politics WTF Obama Religion 8 more
  3.     
    |

40 comments // Catholic bishops plan to forcefully confront Obama

  • krush_productions
  • sickinjersey
  • RCS
  • synclaire
    • 0
      synclaire  
    • To blanch: Sources please! Sorry, I don't see the Catholics out there doing much except trying to increase their own ranks. And, do you think their policy of no birth control, no abortion is really helping? Especially in Africa? We've had 8 years of Global Gag Order and it hasn't done anything but create more misery and hardship for people.

    • 3 years ago
  • blanch
    • 0
      blanch  
    • To Synclaire:
      If you knew anything about development work and the world in general you would know that they are possibly the biggest voices of the poor including "alive children who are dying daily because of starvation, poverty, war, disease", women who have no choices over their bodies and also unborn children who have no choice over their own lives.
      And if you think abortions at 8/9 months are a myth, well that shows your lack of awareness of what goes on in the world.

    • 3 years ago
  • synclaire
  • RCS
    • 0
      RCS  
    • Synclaire, I agree with every single word that you wrote above. Thanks for stating things so clearly and succinctly.

    • 3 years ago
  • synclaire
    • 0
      synclaire  
    • Who are these mythical people out there getting abortions at 8/9 months and where are the doctors who are performing them? It's total scare-tactics from the anti-choice community. As for Catholics, they, just like every other religious wing nut should stay the hell away from womens rights. Not their body, not their choice! Why aren't they more concerned with the alive children who are dying daily because of starvation, poverty, war, disease, etc etc etc.

    • 3 years ago
  • MyDigitalSin
  • RCS
  • Katmai512
    • 0
      Katmai512  
    • Coming from the Philippines, I've seen first hand how much havoc the Catholic clergy can wreak on a population. I can remember some years back when the Philippine government attempted to have a condom campaign to control the run-away population growth, the bishops in the country rallied the masses for a counter campaign.

      As of 2000, population was 76,504,077.
      As of 2008, population is 88,570,000.

      And most of the population's in the rural areas, which comprises about 95% of the country! In 2006, almost 27.6 million people lived below the Philippines' poverty threshold. This represents 26.9 per cent of Philippine families and 32.9 per cent of the population. According to international data, 44 per cent of the population subsisted on US$2 or less a day.** And the bishops are still holding their ground because "God told men to multiply."

      The country's already exhausted resources are being pushed more beyond it's limits by the population explosion. That includes education, food, petrol, etc.

      The sad part is the sheeple in the Philippines are swayed much more easily. Never ever let this group have any say in anything. Maybe we ought to have a campaign reminding humanity of the Dark Ages when the Church's influence was at it's height?

      **http://www.ausaid.gov.au/country/country.cfm?CountryID=31

    • 3 years ago
  • RCS
    • 0
      RCS  
    • Katmai512:

      Terrific example of how these anti-sex-education and anti-birth-control policies affect real people in the real world. I feel sorry for the people of the Philippines who have not been given better opportunities than those they have been given.

    • 3 years ago
  • blanch
    • 0
      blanch  
    • RE: The above posts but also in general...
      I think the question to ask is why are so many women getting pregnant unwillingly and to tackle those causes.
      Legalising abortion masks the problem, it doesn't solve it.

    • 3 years ago
  • RCS
    • 0
      RCS  
    • Sumiboom, The two posts that you have written above are very good. I hope that everyone reads them, and, more importantly, that everyone clicks on the BBC link and reads the article on the effects of banning abortion and limiting birth control in Latin America.

    • 3 years ago
  • Sumiboom
    • 0
      Sumiboom  
    • Image
    • Catholic policy kills thousands of women in developing countries every year, where abortion is still illegal.

      It's all very easy for the pope to say who's rights are more important. Doesn't mean it's right.

    • 3 years ago
  • jh64487
  • Sumiboom
    • 0
      Sumiboom  
    • The person that posted this article clearly didn't read it properly. Obama has never suggested infanticide, which is what killing a baby born after 8-9months is.

      Abortion, on the other hand, is a right that every woman should have the right to CHOOSE to do, within the legal time limit. There are a million valid reasons women make the hard choice of aborting an unborn child, including rape, economic hardship and mental disorders.

      Abortion made illegal only leads to more maternal deaths. Women need this option in a way that a celibate old man living in a palace in Europe will never understand.

    • 3 years ago
  • IMMININT
    • 0
      IMMININT  
    • Sumiboom:

      Sumiboom, you actually took my comments out of context but thanks...

      I'm merely asking people their stance on this. I'm an Obama supporter, and SushiBandit cleared up any confusions I had.

      I just don't believe in partial birth abortion is all I really meant to say.

    • 3 years ago
  • wiredbirds
  • YesWeDid
  • YesWeDid
  • YesWeDid
    • 0
      YesWeDid  
    • Let them confront Obama. It's not his job to appease the clergy. It is his job to appease the American people and Americans support for abortion is above 60%. Hell, American Catholics support for abortion is at 50% and it's their clergy making all the noise. So welcome to the Pro-Choice America = )

    • 3 years ago
  • RCS
  • hot_soup25
  • numinant
    • 0
      numinant  
    • hot_soup25:

      or saves from a future of suffering, depending on your perspective.

      but if potential is the overriding principle for sustaining life at any cost, surely this would have to apply to sperm and ovum. it would even have to apply to ideas. you'd have to procreate as much as humanly possible in order to fulfill all the life potentialities by simple virtue of the fact that they've been mentally conceived of.

    • 3 years ago
  • hot_soup25
    • 0
      hot_soup25  
    • hot_soup25:

      A future of value must be defined as the satisfaction of our desires and the fulfillment of our aims.

      Sperm and ovum, by themselves, have no future. The body terminates them by its own natural process.

      Ideas, although clearly present, cannot be calculated in the physical realm.

      Suffering cannot easily be operationally defined, therefore it is subjective.

    • 3 years ago
  • sickinjersey
    • 0
      sickinjersey  
    • I am a recovering catholic that was raught with fear and guilt as a young child, i am still in counsling. These assholes need to back off and sit down with the rest of us freaks and wait your turn cause you don't manage the keys to heaven you friggen touchers.wow do i sound ugly?no more baby's for you, hat wearin club totin pagans.Oh man that just sounds a little angry to me......

    • 3 years ago
  • lfm
    • 0
      lfm  
    • fine, a baby is a baby even if it still looks like a frog's embryo, fine, there are cells that "beat" like a heart, fine its a human being, even without brain activity, but ok, fine, its a human being. fine, its been 10 days after the literal conception and you consider that ball of cells a human being, fine

      there is no way to draw a line on the sand without it being blurry, UNDERSTOOD, then WHAT ABOUT THE MORNING AFTER PILL?!?

      im stopping now, got a little upset.

      do onto others as you would want done onto you!

      ok, im stopping now.

      AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

    • 3 years ago
  • jh64487
    • 0
      jh64487  
    • first, sushi bandit. awesome response, thanks for setting this straight.

      second. why should the pope have any say in our government policies.

    • 3 years ago
  • naty_forty
  • neocongo
    • 0
      neocongo  
    • I think the Catholic bishops need to crawl, in penance, on their knees from DC to Boys Town Omaha, and back before they start confronting anyone about anything. In fact, take two laps fellers.

    • 3 years ago
  • RCS
  • RCS
  • SushiBandit
    • 0
      SushiBandit  
    • Image
    • Dont belive the lies... Here is the TRUTH!

      Reckless accusations of infanticide
      Some people just don’t care who they hurt to advance their political agenda.

      Accusing a loving father of two beautiful little girls of wanting to kill babies isn’t just wrong on the facts, it’s the most disgusting and manipulative kind of hate politics around. But anti-abortion ideologues with a long history of partisan attacks are still launching unconscionable ads smearing Barack Obama.

      The attackers torture and twist logic and history by willfully misinterpreting votes by Barack Obama in the Illinois State Senate to come up with their wild accusation.

      Here’s the truth about Barack Obama and the bill:

      At the time Barack voted against a bill containing language designed to protect infants who were “born alive,” such protection was already on the books as Illinois state law.[1]
      The accusations against Barack are so reckless that not even the Republican state senator who sponsored the bill will support them. In fact, he freely admits that “None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide.”[2]
      The bill was opposed by many legislators and groups like the Illinois Medical Society because of the unintended impact it would have had on other laws and legal precedents in Illinois.[3]
      Barack is on the record[3] saying that he would have supported a similar bill that came up in Congress -- but that didn’t pose a threat to a woman’s right to choose the way the Illinois bill did.[4]

    • 3 years ago
  • IMMININT
  • tanyetta
  • RCS
  • Blkwdw
    • 0
      Blkwdw  
    • So are they suggesting that Obama is the first president that legalized partial birth abortions - please -why now! the issue is not to save the mother sometimes people just wait along time to decide or get the money to do it. I've seen pictures I wasn't prepared for what i saw.

    • 3 years ago
  • limo
  • notoriousBRE
    • 0
      notoriousBRE  
    • letting a human die while it can be saved is against the oath that doctors take so im not really sure if there is going to be much of that going on.

    • 3 years ago
more from Politics:

top videos