Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: presidio9

2 posted on 09/21/2009 10:02:00 PM PDT by presidio9 ("Don't shoot. Let 'em burn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: presidio9

Getting into a bunch of pseudo intellectual PC stuff that’s above his “pay grade”


3 posted on 09/21/2009 10:04:35 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Love me, love my cat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9

Why then did he endorse Barack Obama, who is in favour of keeping abortion legal, for President, when he wrote a book in 2008, entitled Can a Catholic Support Him????

Because he’s a f***** idiot


6 posted on 09/21/2009 10:08:36 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9

Obama asks the professor: “What would cause a mother to contemplate taking the life of a child? It has to be something awful. It has to be a woman without shelter, medical insurance, without the next meal on the table”

With all due respect to the Obama and to the professor: the only kind of poverty that would lead a woman (or unfortunate pregnant teen-ager)to end the life of her unborn chikd is not exclusively material poverty. It’s also poverty of a different sort, one that isn’t alleviated by purely material measures.

To quote the late, great Catholic psychiatrist, Conrad Baars:

“Abortion is a form of psychic self-destruction, and if practiced on a large it will have the gravest consequences for any society which condones it. Abortion is an act of aggression, not an assertive act. Abortion is the ultimate denial or non-affirmation of both fetus and mother....and abortion will push her deeper into her loneliness and isolation, to provoke a depression which in our experience is malignant and incurable”.

The very people who should be willing to affirm the pregnant woman are the ones who choose to abandon her-—starting with the man who fathered that unborn child.

It’s a societal problem that transcends the fundamental need to care for the material needs of the pregnant mother and goes to the crux of the problem—a society which is losing it moorings of family structure and familial resources which protect all of its members.

Yes—there needs to be basic support for the woman who finds herself pregnant and unable, alone, to care for herself and her unborn child.

And there also needs to be the awareness of a more deeply troubling problem-—if there is “no room in the inn” for this unborn child, then the “final solution” is the seek-and-destroy mission that puts an end to the “problem”.

We can only wish that the answer is shelter and food and insurance, but we know that it’s much more than that.


10 posted on 09/21/2009 10:26:48 PM PDT by Running On Empty ((The three sorriest words:"It's too late"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9
Mr Obama replied: "Well, professor, not everyone sees life beginning in the same way. The Methodists see it differently, the Jewish faith in part sees it differently." And he went through the list, Presbyterians and so forth.

What a ridiculous argument. Gee, not everybody saw slavery the same way, either. Or, more recently--not everyone sees health insurance reform the same way, either. Why doesn't Obama work to change "hearts and minds" on health insurance, rather than ramming through legislation? If it's good enough for the unborn, it's good enough for the uninsured, right?

28 posted on 09/22/2009 5:42:55 AM PDT by GraceCoolidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9
Little Dougie must like LIARS because Bammy is one of the BEST!

Hey, Dougie, watch the Glenn Beck show where he plays Bammy saying one thing, and then a clip of him saying just the OPPOSITE!! He is a LIAR!

29 posted on 09/22/2009 5:45:23 AM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion....the Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9

You realize, of course, that this is a mental disorder.
There is an oppositional-defiant form of obsessive compulsive disorder in which
the person gets a charge out of saying and doing outrageous things which upset
and agitate people. This is a very bad case of that.

Usually it hits a formerly very scrupulous nun or priest who at some point can't stop
talking about sex in very graphic details. The dorks who come out as supportive
of pro-abortion politicians display similar hysteria. They get this smirk as they tell
pro-lifers they are supporting the abortionist. That's oppositional defiant disorder.
Not surprising for it to appear in a left-brained law professor, already with a lot
of control issues, rigid character armor, and elaborate routine of defense mechanisms.
Nor surprising that it is presented as an elaborate, complex, intellectual ethical and legal
theory with a lot of casuistry, hair splitting, quodlibets, and annotations, claimed to be
the result of an arduous and heroic personal intellectual achievement, accompanied by
smugness, nose raising, self-righteous projections, accusations, moralistic lecturing, and
assertions of moral and intellectual superiority combined with a self-pitying persecution
complex. Hubris. Repetitive and obsessive hand washing would not be surprising.

The disaster of Bush-Cheney really drew them out.
Along with Obama's deranged messianic posturing.


32 posted on 09/22/2009 7:54:21 AM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson