AmericanPapist Comments
Thanks for the shout out! While I certainly appreciate the exposure for my blog, I must clarify that it was not I who organized the protest. Instead, credit goes to the Franciscan University College Republicans and Billy Valentine, who is the president of the organization. It was via the organization's facebook group that I received information about Clinton's visit, and I posted it to my blog so that it would reach a wider audience.
Here is the most recent message:
Thank you for making tonight's protest extremely successful. We are getting great national and local coverage.
Our protest is now featured on MSNBC, Townhall.com, National Journal, and some great pro-life blogs.
The YouTube video of Clinton lashing out at pro-lifers can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7...h?
v=7XfmJeIJpns
Please note the gentleman who helped instigate Clinton's blow-up is not a Franciscan student, but he certainly helped give our story legs in the media.
Tomorrow I will make sure to send out a list of all the various blog postings and stories our protest is featured in.
God Bless you all and thank you for being active. Please let me or anyone in College Republicans know if you are not registered to vote, or if you want to become more active in influencing the 2008 elections.
Billy
Hopefully, the Democrats finally see that, if you aren't socially conservative, you're not welcome in Steubenville.
Pax Christi,
If there is nothing wrong with abortion, why do they care if the number of abortions performed is reduced or not?
Scott W's comment is a valid one.
Many of these Democrat politicians explain their vigorous support of abortion on demand by saying that they are "personally opposed" to abortion, but do not feel that they can "impose" their views on others. I call them POTABs "Personally Opposed To Abortion But".
Why are they personally opposed?
If abortion does not destroy an innocent human life, why would anyone be opposed to it?
If it does destroy a human life, how could there possibly be a "but" on one's personal opposition?
If their ever was an appropriate respnose the previous post, its this story.
brassband,
There is an answer to your question. Most POTABs don't dispute that abortion involves the taking of an innocent human life, but they subordinate that moral objection to the value they place on a woman's autonomy over her body. This thinking most certainly is a disordered application of morality, but I do believe that it is the correct answer to your important question. This disordered morality, I believe, is animated by feminists' anger over the historic mistreatment of women by men, a passion that informs not only the moral values of dogmatic feminists but also the values of those whose self-image requires that they see themselves as in alignment with them.
At least that is how I see it.
Silly Demon-crats, when are they going to learn to steer well clear of Franciscan? We're notorious!
I think it's sufficient to say Hil's campaign is gasping its last, but oughtn't we be supporting the lovely lady, at least surreptitiously, as she'd be a less formidable opponent than Obama? Love your blog...
Despite the smell and the quality of the water, I love this little town and these students.
Such anger as of late Bill!! Certainly not the temperament of one who would be 'first gentleman'.
Here's a better video of Clinton's outburst:
three
Pax Christi,
Sorry, wrong link, I meant to post this one:
http://www.wrcbtv.com/videowindo...ow.cfm?
sid=2771
Anybody else find it interesting that Mr. Clinton said pro-lifers would jail "doctors and mothers" (emphasis mine)? Doesn't that imply--nay, state, that the child aborted is truly a person? I mean, my wife is the mother of our son, but not of our dog, so there must be a person in there! Perhaps, had he thought it out, he would have considered the definition of "mother" before using it. Heh. :)
Perhaps, had he thought it out, he would have considered the definition of "mother" before using it. Heh. :)
This is what I like to call (for lack of anything better), Negative Witness to Truth.
Interesting furthermore how pro-lifers are considered the idealogues while bill's supporters cheer his every word, and in so doing completely miss all the logical fallicies and plain stupidity he's reciting.
J.D. Aquila: duly noted.
teep: seriously, his legacy of desecrating everything this country used to hold sacred about the presidency (on very shaky ground since nixon) ... continues apace.
Good point, AmPap. I blame Nixon for a lot of this, he so sullied the office. If Clinton was worse, and he was, and if JFK never got outed (which he didn't) Nixon made the office seem attainable by the likes of Clinton, and look where we are.
So AmP, what your saying is that the qualifier, "as of late" is out of line? Touche.
More on Clinton in Steubenville
http://
phatcatholic.blogspot.com...eubenville.html
What he fails to mention is how some of his policies were passed under sever political pressure that he did not want to pass. I think mainly of the bill that allowed for each state money to develop an abstinence education program.
today we cant send abortists to jail...but we can send presidential candidates to home...Yes we can
I hope someone pointed out to him that it doesn't count as "standing up for individual rights" until you consider the unborn as individuals, in which case, she just becomes a hypocrite. Again.
Like that TV commercial I saw her in, about "giving children their God-given right to thrive".
Really, Hillary? All children? Even the unborn ones?
GRR.
Look people
Look people, Roe v. Wade is here to stay. Even Chief Justice Roberts has said as much.
Clinton's pro-choice policy is irrelevant. He does not facilitate abortions. Rather, women and their doctors take care of that.
Instead of criticizing this president, whose economic and social policies actually helped to decrease abortions, you all should be helping women who are actually in need.
Abortions will continue to be performed whether they are legal or illegal.
Ultimately, the legality of abortion is irrelevant. Focus on the conditions that lead to abortion and you will see a decline.
By the way, what good did it do to have 20 years of pro-life presidents( Reagan, Bush1, Bush2)? Roe v Wade wasn't overturned, neither was the death penalty.
Pro-life presidents and candidates are all about talk, not action. Voting for a pro-choice president isn't such a big deal because in reality the president cannot do much about abortion. It is in the hands of the Supreme Court in the end. Forget about an amendment; many states have already passed laws dictating that if RvW is overturned abortion will remain legal in those states.
The above sounds like an example of one who is trying to justify himself to his own conscience.
Oh goody. I've been looking for fisk fodder.
Look people, Roe v. Wade is here to stay. Even Chief Justice Roberts has said as much.
I can almost hear someone from the 1800's saying, "Look people, The Dred Scott Decision is here to stay."
Clinton's pro-choice policy is irrelevant. He does not facilitate abortions. Rather, women and their doctors take care of that.
The KKK's race-policy is irrelevant but guess what? I wouldn't vote for a KKK memeber even if he were running for town dog-catcher.
Instead of criticizing this president, whose economic and social policies actually helped to decrease abortions, you all should be helping women who are actually in need.
To errors. One is begging the question--you can't show causation. The second is a false dilema. That if we protest abortion, that means we are not helping women. That would be news to people who work with programs like Project Gabriel.
Abortions will continue to be performed whether they are legal or illegal.
Ultimately, the legality of abortion is irrelevant. Focus on the conditions that lead to abortion and you will see a decline.
Great. So the next time he arrest someone for mugging, we have to let him go because muggings will happen whether they are legal or not. It's another false dichotomy. It is perfectly acceptable to push for it's illegalization AND address conditions.
By the way, what good did it do to have 20 years of pro-life presidents( Reagan, Bush1, Bush2)? Roe v Wade wasn't overturned, neither was the death penalty.
You are confusing effectiveness with formal support. As Mothera Teresa said, "I am not called to be successful but to be faithful." By the way, Catholics are not obliged to call for the overturn of the death penalty.
Pro-life presidents and candidates are all about talk, not action. Voting for a pro-choice president isn't such a big deal because in reality the president cannot do much about abortion. It is in the hands of the Supreme Court in the end. Forget about an amendment; many states have already passed laws dictating that if RvW is overturned abortion will remain legal in those states.
This reminds me of the Voice of Saruman: "Against the power of Mordor, there can be no victory. We must join with him." You will pardon me if I'm not resigned to that just yet.
Good fisk, Scott W.
I would also like to point out that the next president will most likely be appointing some Supreme Court justices, so to say that the president can't do anything is also incorrect. While I don't think justices appointed by any of the Republican candidates would be stellar, they'd likely be much better than any appointed by Obama or Clinton. So while I don't think the president can make it "all better", I have a concern about the next president making things worse.
More fake Catholics exposing themselves here. For them,the minimum wage is a higher imperative than abortion. Tom
"Look people, Roe v. Wade is here to stay. Even Chief Justice Roberts has said as much."
Well, not exactly:
The heart of the abortion ruling is "settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis," the concept that long-established rulings should be given extra weight, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee on the second day of his confirmation hearings.
Because it is settled as a precedent, it is indeed entitled to respect and given extra weight under principles of stare decisis. That is a long way away from "here to stay" in law-speak.
If you think abortion is murder, then you must think doctors and women who commit it are accomplices or murderers. How is Mr. Clinton wrong to point this out? Furthermore, how is he wrong in stating that if pro-life protesters were open about this, they would lose all credibility?
Commenting by HaloScan
