Abortion.  Apparently that is the defining issue of our culture.

Sure, there are many things that drive the liberals wacky about Palin, but her determined pro life stance has to be the one I read about the most.  The constant accusations that she will repeal Roe Wade are generally the loudest.

No matter that the ability to make Roe Wade go away is hardly easy and not in the list of executive powers.

Perhaps these panic stricken fear mongers should consider that you have had 3 conservative presidents, all who were pro choice, and gee, none of them managed that trick.

We have a stumbling economy, a war, the constant threat of terrorism and all manner of other important issues, but for some reason, the defining issue keeps becoming Abortion.

Why is abortion such a polarizing issue?  Why does it promote such a visceral reaction?

The reality may be in what the two sides see it as.

Conservatives see the issue as a moral one, that of protecting innocent life. 

Liberals see it as a matter of choice, the choice to terminate a life.

The issue is a serious divide ideologically and morally, and as such, perhaps I should not be too surprised to see it such a defining issue.

But at the same time, as i noted, there are far too many real issues, issues that affect all the American’s who are alive, than to spend a lot of time whining about the ability to kill some of the unborn ones.

Yes, I admit, her solid stance on Abortion impresses me, even as Obama’s cruel stance disgusts me.

But neither of their views is enough to sway me definitively, I have many more fish to fry in my political needs.

If the only reason you can find to dislike Sarah Palin is her stance on Abortion, than perhaps the problem is that you have skewed priorities.

The smack down regarding abortion continues for Joe Biden as two more Catholic Bishops take him to task for his latest comments.¹

Two prominent U.S. Catholic bishops said Tuesday that Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden contradicted church teaching by saying in a weekend interview that determining when human life begins is a “personal and private” matter of religious faith he would not impose on others.

The statement from Cardinal Justin Rigali and Bishop William Lori said Biden, who appeared Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” is the latest case of the U.S. Catholic hierarchy correcting a Catholic politician.

Asked on the program about when life begins, Biden said: “Look, I know when it begins for me. It’s a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I am prepared to accept the teachings in my church.”

He added that while he believes life begins “at the moment of conception,” it would inappropriate to impose that view on others in a pluralistic society.

So essentially he takes a position that life begins at conception, but then ducks into a “don’t want to push my beliefs on others” defense.  While that is, on the surface at least, a reasonable sounding perspective, it is also semi hypocritical as it seems that Democrats (and to be fair, politicians in general) are often semi hypocritical as they are quite happy to push their beliefs off on pother people all the time.

This is an artful dodge really, nothing more.  By making the doctrinal stance, he figures he has made the appropriate concession to church, and by leaving it to privacy and individual choice, he has divested himself of responsibility of other choices.  It just isn’t that easy.

Both Pelosi and Biden who were chastised by Catholic Archbishops for their prolife stances show no signs of contrition, and continue to insist their positions are not controversial.

First, Biden, who claims that his beliefs may not be in line, but it is OK, because the church doesn’t really care ¹:

Joe Biden supposedly will attract Catholics to the Democratic ticket, but not if he follows Pope Nancy Pelosi for doctrinal guidance.  In a profile of Biden for the Christian Science Monitor, Biden credits his Catholicism for his focus on “abuse of power”, but shrugs off the abortion debate as a minor controversy.  He even goes on to tell Gail Russell Chaddock that his views on social issues fall completely within Catholic doctrine:

“The animating principle of my faith, as taught to me by church and home, was that the cardinal sin was abuse of power,” he said in an interview with the Monitor. “It was not only required as a good Catholic to abhor and avoid abuse of power, but to do something to end that abuse.”

The issues that have most engaged Biden in public life draw on those teachings, from halting violence against women to genocide. At a personal level, his faith provides him peace, he says. “I get comfort from carrying my rosary, going to mass every Sunday. It’s my time alone,” he says.

But the interface of faith and policy has long been problematic for Catholic presidential hopefuls. Governor Smith faced withering criticism over whether Catholic politicians are obliged by their church to take policy orders from Rome. John F. Kennedy famously disavowed “outside religious pressures or dictates,” swept the Catholic vote, and won the presidency. By the time another J.F.K. from Massachusetts ran for president in 2004, the ground had shifted. Sen. John F. Kerry lost the Catholic vote because many of his faith questioned whether he was Catholic enough, given his strong support for abortion rights.

OK, I admit, that title almost reads like some lame joke lead in ( a priest and abortionist and a democrat walked into a bar and…..).

But believe it or not, it is news. Now, as a disclaimer, I am not promoting a stand on abortion here, this is merely about Democrats who are Catholic.

It started with this story a few days ago, where Nancy Pelosi apparently decided to speak authoritatively on Catholic doctrine:¹

I’m always astounded as to the extent of deception in which pro-choice Catholics indulge themselves, both inwardly and outwardly, to justify their positions. Perhaps there is no balder example of this than Nancy Pelosi attempting to spin the Catholic doctrine on human life today on Meet the Press. Pelosi argues that the Catholic position on human life only developed in the last 50 years and that it doesn’t impact abortion in any case:

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator-St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child-first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester.

 

There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, carefulconsideration of all factors and-to-that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…

REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

MR. BROKAW: …begins at the point of conception.

The abortion debate took an interesting turn.

Obama has been under fire for a while over his prior votes on abortion so it was obvious that would come up in the Saddleback interview.

When asked when a fetus gains human rights status, Obama took a clear stand:  Ask someone else.  ¹

Obama says pointed abortion query “above his pay grade”

DALLAS - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama side-stepped a pointed query about abortion on Saturday by “mega-pastor” Rick Warren during a televised forum.

Asked at what point a baby gets “human rights,” Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question  with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

He went on to reiterate his view that it was important to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

He is right in the sense that the root issue of abortion is unwanted pregnancies.  But that does not change the fact that you still need to answer the question and define the nature of life if you want to justify abortion.

The issue at hand is when an abortion is performed and the fetus is delivered alive.  A law requiring medical care to be given to such fetuses was voted down with the help of Obama.  In fact he opposed it directly for three years.

The issue seems pretty simple really.  if life begins at birth, a failed abortion that results in a live “birth” qualifies.  At the least some attempt should be made to save the life,

Obama’s response to his gaffe has been his typical tap dance nuance.²

I don’t get this.  The Catholic Church is very much opposed to Abortion.  So why would a Catholic school ban a Pro Life speaker?

Apparently guilt by association is the sin.  This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater…ironically enough.   Via Hot Air:

Here in the Twin Cities, conservatives have long been inured to the strange policy decisions made by liberal administrations colleges and universities in our community, but the University of St. Thomas may have surprised even the most resigned conservatives here. St. Thomas denied permission for a presentation by a young African-American woman to speak on abortion. Normally, this wouldn’t seem surprising for a Catholic university, but the woman wanted to speak out against abortion — and the university apparently believes that to violate its community standards:

Star Parker is a bestselling author who travels the country speaking to young audiences about the harmful impact of abortion, especially in minority communities. What better place than the University of St. Thomas — an urban, Catholic campus — for this dynamic African-American woman to bring her prolife message?

For almost two months, St. Thomas’ Students for Human Life organization looked forward to sponsoring Parker’s planned appearance on campus April 21. Her fee was to be split by the St. Thomas Standard, a conservative student newspaper, and the Young America’s Foundation, a Herndon, Va., group that brings conservative speakers and ideas to college campuses.

Students for Human Life applied to the university’s Student Life Committee for a campus site where Parker could speak. But the committee turned thumbs down. Star Parker, it seems, was not welcome at St. Thomas.

Katie Kieffer, an alumna who helped plan Parker’s visit, says that Vice President for Student Affairs Jane Canney, who oversees the committee, blocked the way. “She told me, ‘As long as I’m a vice president at St. Thomas, we will not deal with Young America’s Foundation,’” said Kieffer.

You cannot make this stuff up.  Michelle Malkin links to this story:

Via the enormous online database of the Media/Materials Clearinghouse, a selection of “health communications materials” by Planned Parenthood affiliates:

Now let me be clear:  Not all the ideas they are proposing are bad.  Birth control and planning of families is not a bad idea, particularly in places where population growth is out of control.  That to me is common sense.  It is when it becomes an abortion issue, and people use an abortion to “prune” the excess and unwanted children, as if they were drowning kittens, that I take exception. 

The danger is that the distance between the two camps is narrowing, as shown in stories like this and with bumper stickers like this:

Environmentalists have taken the lead in this insanity by stating clearly that large families are dangerous.  And as long as families are a danger, then abortion may not always be that last resort that most people believe it should be.

Consider this:  my dad was second of 13 children, so had these yahoos had their way in the 40s and 50s, I would likely not have most of my aunts and uncles, and my plethora of cousins that I embrace with joy at reunions.

Heck, bring it a little closer, I have 4 kids,  2 too many for some of these guys (4 too many for others).  I’m sure my two youngest kids would resent being considered either a mistake or an environmental threat.

To me the answer is making places like Planned Parenthood act a little more true to their title.  You can plan a family, and plan your being a parent without resorting to abortion.  Abortion is either planning your unfamily, or unplanning the family.

So call it what it is.

I am reposting this blog with permission from Sister Toldjah because I think she does a marvelous job on the subject.  She is fairly passionate about it.

I have long said that abortion is a subject I have strong opinions on, but as i am a man society says my opinion is less persuasive then a womans choice, so in fairness, I defer to a real live woman Who happens to share most of my beliefs.

Whoopi Goldberg: We must show “reverence” for women who’ve aborted their babies

One of my all time favorite TV shows is the 80’s and 90’s sitcom Roseanne.

Roseanne when it came out could have been a portrait of my life.  At the time I was not well off financially, and was dealing with a lot of stress and unhappiness with laughter and sarcasm.

It was one of the first sitcoms to portray what life for most working class people was like:  A struggle with highs and lows. It also, as Roseanne Barr notes in her DVD commentary, clearly showcases the disconnect in class in America.

But.  One of the things I do struggle with is Roseanne herself, the actress, the comedienne and the activist.

I perused her blog and was shocked at how she can flip from crazy to wacky in no time at all.

Here are some examples from Roseanne World.   WARNING:  EXTREME LANGUAGE AHEAD

On Anne Coulter:

Ann Coulter

She serves a purpose, and a part of that is disturbing. When any woman with opinions speaks up - including Anne (the mouthpiece for Aryan womanhood) - she is the victim of verbal sexual assault. Her genitals and sexuality are gleefully insulted: she has an Adam’s apple, she likes getting fucked in the ass… This is wrong in any case, even hers. It demeans all women to do it. She can be debated intelligently, and if she would allow me that, I would be honored to do it, as I think she makes some valid points about the failures of the left in this country.

http://www.roseanneworld.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5192

A clear thinking, fair rational piece.  Now flip to:

Ann Coulter’s Anti-Semitism

The ultimate state of the perfection of Jews: they are all dead.

This is what is actually in the minds of Bush/Cheney and all Christians of the right who run this country, and ironically, are the major supporters of the state of Israel’s ride to ruin which is coming very quickly.

I don’t know much about her, but I found her comments very cutting.

MLK’s niece: Pro-choice is pro-murder

“When we say we’re pro-choice, we’re saying we’re pro-murder,” an advocate against abortion told an audience of about 50 on Thursday at Valparaiso University School of Law.

Alveda King, a former member of the Georgia state Legislature and the niece of Martin Luther King Jr. promoted abstinence and adoption as alternatives to what she called “womb lynching” of unborn children. She encouraged efforts in state legislatures to reduce abortions.

A woman can do what she wants with her body, King said. “The baby is not her body. That’s not a blob of tissue, that’s a person.”

King claimed the abortion industry is targeting African-Americans, saying that more than one-third of an estimated 49 million abortions since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision have been performed on blacks. She characterized Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger as “a devout racist.”

Abortion in cases of rape was not justified, King said. Rape is a violent act and an abortion forces further violence on the victim, she said.

King, who had two involuntary abortions as a young woman before taking a pro-life stance, called the sexual revolution of her generation a “disaster” that broke down the family.

If her uncle were alive, he could not condone abortion, King said.

“He absolutely couldn’t,” she said.

Here is the money quote:

“How can the dream survive if we murder the children?”

Ouch.

I have long believed that MLK would be appalled at how his dream has been twisted.

Maybe I am right.