Why won't Pennsylvania governor, Tom Ridge respect the institution?

It’s sick that a man who voted FOR with-holding life saving care from a newly, fully born baby because ‘the intent was for it to be aborted’…let it pass away… and receives an honor from a University which is supposedly Catholic, going against church teachings, God’s word, and church Canon law - there is a very real difference in honoring vs giving a platform - the Church has stated:

‘Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community’ (US Bishops, 1998, Living the Gospel of Life, n.23). ‘Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights – for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture – is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination’ (Pope John Paul I, 1988, The Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World (Christifideles Laici), n.38).

Those are clear and strong words.

I would become a christian, just like amblessed, except the lobotomy probably hurts.

Simple: Read the Bills - no matter how anyone wants to try and slice or spin it or whine about it, he wanted medical treatment denied the newborn - anyone who can’t understand that, I can’t help them, it’s written in black and white - but like the CIA, the Illinois Senate Bill language recorders may be misleading all, I don’t know…Take care !!

Notre Dame accepts federal money…

Perhaps Notre Dame should do what you consider the “right thing”, “take the high road” and refuse to accept federal money…after all, federal money supports programs that are not supported by catholic doctrine.

Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II, U.S. bishops and other Catholic leaders throughout the world have spoken out against capital punishment as act that stands in contradiction to the belief that all human life is sacred.

Federal money supports capital punishment. Federal money supports abortion rights.

amblessed, since you are on such high moral ground and have such a problem with the President speaking at Notre Dame because of his stand in support of pro-choice, perhaps you should sit down and write a letter to Notre Dame and ask why they aren’t taking the “high road” and refusing to accept federal money since current federal laws, programs, grants, etc support views that are completely in contradiction with the Catholic Church.

Unless you think it is okay to have your cake and eat it too…

The truth you posted? I’m looking, but I can’t find any. You stated that Obama “voted FOR with-holding life saving care from a newly, fully born baby” - and utopia has thoroughly debunked that - and further, we’ve shown that you should have already known that was a falsehood when you posted it.

Are you going to acknowledge that what you claimed wasn’t accurate, amblessed, or simply move on to another person to spew ad-homenims at?

Would love to have my say on this one, but Utopia has done such a wonderful job of exposing this lie (again!), I have nothing to add.

Research harder - it’s true…he himself stated the reasons for opposing “born-alive” bills had to do with preserving abortion rights.

“It’s sick that a man who voted FOR with-holding life saving care from a newly, fully born baby because ‘the intent was for it to be aborted’”

This was already addressed as falsehood in a thread in which you participated, Amblessed. How do you justify claiming something you know is false?

We live in a fallen world, including universities. Your right it would be nice if people looked after the welfare of others and as the Bible states “live at peace when all possible”. But God allows things to happen for a reason, look for the reason. “All things work together for good, for those that love the Lord” Blessings, Christianwalk

“Simple: Read the Bills - no matter how anyone wants to try and slice or spin it or whine about it, he wanted medical treatment denied the newborn”

You are pathetic. Are you actually trying to say someone voting against something is the same as voting for the opposite?

Is reading the bills going to tell you exactly what Obama’s motivation for voting against it was? Or did Obama say he wants to deny medical treatment to a newborn during the debates? If so, please provide us with the quotes.

You can try and interprest Obama’s motives all you want, but trying to pass off your opinion of what he did as if it were the absolute truth only shows you for the liar and phony chistian you really are.

“he wanted medical treatment denied the newborn”

Lying again. You don’t know what he wanted, and your attempt to characterize an entire bill as a single black and white sentence fails. Nobody is denying medical care to newborn children before or after this bill or its federal equivalent. The bill he voted against would have made doctors liable for the death of any premature infant, regardless of viability.

Governor Ridge, by his actions showed real class and character, not arrogance and disregard…but, such is normal for ‘he who cannot be wrong ever’…hmmm, sounds like Pelosi :-)…open your eyes: the rhetoric does not match their actions - “you shall know them by their works” - like the bow to the Saudi King, even Ray Charles can see it.

And here’s the original thread - which you posted in, so presumably read (see page 4 for your post): http://www.funadvice.com/q/why_do_people_like_obama_so_much

And as Utopia said at the time: “Several years ago there was a law up for vote in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which sought to mandate safeguards regarding this. Obama and several others voted against it because it had no provision for protection of the doctors, nurses and hospitals. When that clause was added, he voted FOR it. “

So no, it’s not true.

As an article on the subject says both concisely and accurately: “University President Fr. John Jenkins responded to criticism regarding the announcement of President Barack Obama as the 2009 Commencement speaker by clearly making a distinction between honoring the president and supporting his political views.”

They invited him. To say that he has to decline is absurd - and the implication (letting Jenkins ‘off the hook’) that he was invited with the explicit intention that he not accept is insulting.

No, I’ll stick to the truth I posted unlike Pelosi who’s on version 42.

tseirpeht - ANY church that preaches political views should be denied tax exemption.

Research - it’s true.

None of which makes any difference. The issue is with your characterization - to wit, “a man who voted FOR with-holding life saving care from a newly, fully born baby because ‘the intent was for it to be aborted’…let it pass away”.

As your own transcript demonstrated, he never voted FOR anything of the sort. He voted against a bill that classed any baby that shows ‘independent’ vital signs - no matter how far premature - as having the same rights as a fully grown human.

It’s not hard to see how this is problematic, given that premature babies over about 20 weeks often survive momentarially but are non-viable outside the womb, and are, sadly, destined to die no matter what intervention is provided. It’s also not difficult to imagine grief-stricken parents of a premature baby deciding to sue a doctor under this legislation when there’s nothing he could have done. Voting against such a flawed bill is the only sensible thing to do. And, as Obama himself stated, he would have happily voted for the federal bill, which had no such issues.

So quite apart from anything else, it’s obvious that your original statement is completely untrue. If I vote against a bill that states “kittens should not be drowned in rivers, and anyone who does so shall be executed on the spot”, it’s completely untrue - and deliberately misleading - to say that I’m voting for the drowning of kittens.

amblessed - we know that you will continue to lie regarding this issue but here goes, AGAIN…

The 2003 “Born Alive Infant” legislation would have given the rights of personhood to a fetus. No matter what stage of pregnancy – even before viability These bills would have placed criminal and civil liabilities (including punitive damages) on doctors and hospitals that provided obstetric care or abortion services to pregnant women. These bills had the potential of placing a woman and her fetus at odds when it came to medical care because what might be in the best interest of one might put the other at risk. Although the differences between the federal and state versions appeared to be of few actual words, the legal impact of the definitions remained significantly different between the two versions. The state versions afforded full legal rights to pre-viable fetuses. They also excluded a section of the federal bill that clarified that legal rights of a person would not be applied to fetuses that were not yet born.

WHAT AMBLESSED DOES NOT MENTION IS THAT THIS LEGISLATION CAME UP AGAIN IN 2005 (REWORDED AND AS A STAND ALONE BILL) and it passed both the Illinois house and senate with no legislators voting against it. HB 984 was signed into law on August 12, 2005.

So, to recap: In 2003 - Obama and 5 other legislators voted AGAINST the bill when first introduced because it would have left doctors, nurses and hospitals that provide abortions open to lawsuits and prosecution. CLEARLY A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW.

In 2005 - The legislation was REWORDED so it would not conflict with federal law and it was PASSED with no legislators voting against it. In other words, Obama voted for it.

Liar, liar pants on fire… amblessed you keep spreading your lie of omission and on a previous post you state that once a christian accepts christ and repents, then he will try to follow the path of christ…

Not only have you left the path but you are lost in the woods. Quit your lies of omission and tell the whole story…

SO, HAVE YOU WRITTEN THAT LETTER TO NOTRE DAME YET? YOU REALLY SHOULD ENLIGHTEN THEM ON RIGHT AND WRONG, CHRISTIAN MORALS, THE FACT THAT ACCEPTING FEDERAL MONEY SHOULD BE STOPPED…BUT DON’T BRING UP THAT OBAMA ABORTION LIE… THEY WOULD DOUBT YOUR SINCERITY AND YOUR FAITH…

NO ONE LIKES TO BE PREACHED TO BY A LIAR…

First a fetus wasn’t a human being, now a baby isn’t a human being. I am sure if a libertarian had done the same thing you would call for his execution. The laws were made to protect human life yet time after time you redefine it because of some loop hole. There shouldn’t be any loop holes to justify murder on any level.

This is where the difference between dems and reps comes in, we believe thou shall not kill (but that is too vague). We believe that thou shall not bear false witness (but its too hard). We believe that we should not steal but what about the poor!!.

When will you keep the laws that YOU made? This is the same thing of the separation of church and state, it’s not just to shut the teachers up, but the students as well. My son can’t even have a verse written on his backpack because its “forces” religion on kids. But when a church has an opinion on something that YOU don’t agree they lose their exemption status. Let me guess you probably still think the communities greatest asset is the government. You have no clue how much money the American church donates every year. Or how do you justify the fairness doctrine should only apply to radio? Do you care about anything outside of yourselves, your precious taxes, your votes? When did the liberal churches lose their exemption for supporting their politicians?

Every time Obama screws up you come up with some new way to deitize (yes I made that word up) him.

Timeline Facts: Ref: Illinois Senate Bills 1095. 1662. 1082.

2001 February 22: Born Alive Infants Protection Act (Senate Bill 1095) was first introduced in the Illinois Senate.

March 28: Then State Senator Barack Obama voted “NO” on the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Re: dating, the bill was introduced one day, and the vote was held the next. The tally is dated the day the hearing on the bill began.)

March 30: Obama spoke against the bill on the Senate floor.

March 30: Obama voted “PRESENT” on the Senate floor.

2002 January 30: Born Alive Infants Protection Act (Senate Bill 1662) was reintroduced after failing to become law the prior year.

March 6: Then State Senator Barack Obama voted “NO” on the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

April 4: Obama spoke against the bill on the Senate floor.

April 4: Obama voted “NO” on the Senate floor.

July 18: Congress passed the federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

August 5: The federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection was signed by the President into law.

2003 February 19: Born Alive Infants Protection Act (Senate Bill 1082) was reintroduced after failing to become law the prior year.

March 13: After first voting for an amendment to make the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act identical to the federal version, Obama voted against the bill. (Re: dating, the bill was introduced one day, and the vote was held the next. The tally is dated the day the hearing on the bill began.)