I wonder if Mr. Lacy would make the same rationalizations if the subject were, say, a law. What if a law had been introduced increasing punishments on those convicted of the rape of a minor? Would Mr. Obama vote against it claiming, "well, there are already laws on that, so I oppose it." Would he get a free pass on that?
Or what would we think of a politician who wanted to abolish laws against rape and instead work towards economic and cultural solutions that would make rapists not want to rape. Would we view that as a rational intellectually valid position?

Fair point, Mary. But I don't think that we need to argue factual viablity to be morally correct. A person is entitled to ordinary care even if we know to a moral certainty that he is dying. Obama et al shrewdly refrain from expressly objecting to that principle, but they nonetheless oppose any legislation that would acknowledge the rather indisputable fact that a born child is such a person even if the birth was a result of a failed abortion. It is as simple as that. They view the ideas of "personhood" and "viablity" to be essential barriers in the fight to retain abortion rights, and if a child is born in a failed abortion that is just too close for them. It really is that simple and that heinous. The nonsense about the lack of neutrality provisions is all just noxious smoke and deceptive mirrors.

I'm going to miss this country. It was a nice experiment while it lasted.

Tim,
I really don't care about your opinion of my fairness, and honestly I doubt anyone does. I care about the facts.
You say:
"It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support." ' (last para of summary). That backs up Zorn and my interpretation of Zorn. It's not spinning like a top partisan."
Quite to the contrary. First, a fetus that is born (i.e., alive outside the womb) is not a fetus -- it is an infant. There is no such thing as a born fetus. The entire point here -- as the quote you rely on states -- is that Illinois law afforded no protection for such infants unless they were viable -- i.e. had a reasonable likelihood of survival. That is exactly what the legislation at issue was intended to remedy. A child that is dying still deserves ordinary care, even if it is born as a consequence of a failed abortion. Are you really so obtuse as to still not understand that? Try reading the quote again, this time slowly.
I will admit this, though. I agree that the term infanticide is a reach. Refusing ordinary care to a dying person is not the same as killing him. It is nonetheless evil. Obama supported that, and then lied about it; and then when he was called on it, he called his accusers liars. The record is clear on that. If you cannot understand it, then it is simply willfull ignorance on your part. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

Is Tim Lacy another Joseph D'Hippolito?

BTW, I'm now signing off this thread for good. I appreciate the engagement from some, but not all of you. I'll join in some later Akin posts. I need a break. I'm just tired of the back and forth---but I'm not feeling defeated. - TL

Mike Petrik: Your very own link contradicts you. It says:
'Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama's 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believe a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support." ' (last para of summary). That backs up Zorn and my interpretation of Zorn. It's not spinning like a top partisan. Please. At least be fair to a source that's not from me and the very source ~you~ cited.
Furthermore, what economists are you citing? The Friedman school? The Laffer curve folks? Mike, I'm finding you to be one of the least fair, least objective participants in this discussion. And you can't evaluate the New Deal only on the 33-37 period (where some improvement occurred until FDR slowed/held spending down for a year in 36-37). It lasted until 40 or so when war purchases from abroad started boosting our economy.
Adam D: What you see is what you get. My cards on decidedly on the table. I contend that Obama is not a babykiller. Some here do. I'm disputing them. That's it. Spin is interpretation, and I do interpret some things differently (i.e. not all pro-choicers are babykillers, and not all pro-lifers are altruistic, non-partisan defenders of the unborn). This isn't black and white stuff for the rest of the world. We Catholics know what we believe, but the world sees our position of human-at-conception as a one faith, not science. We have scientists on our side, to be sure, but not all of them by any means.
JoAnna: I'm fully aware of the difference between artificial and natural acts against conception. I'm only making a mild argument that NFP can allow for a (non-artificial) contraceptive mentality. You can still really, really, really not want to have that baby while you're practicing NFP.
- TL

"The term "infanticide" is only inapt if one somehow believes that a born infant is not a person if he is not viable."
Incorrect.
Correct:
"The term "infanticide" is only inapt if one somehow believes that a born infant is not a person if he is CAllED not viable."

Mike Petrik brings up more good argument on the BAIPA issue (and I'm entirely unqualified to touch the economic question) but this brings to my mind some important questions. I'd really appreciate it, Tim Lacy, if you'd perhaps lay out all your cards for us. Because I've become a bit perplexed about your position and what you're trying to get at in all this defense of Obama.
Where would you like to see others' positions shifting? You want to see compromises on opposition to abortion? Is abortion really not "baby-killing?" Why support Obama so forcefully? Where are you actually willing to criticize him? Where do you oppose Obama?
Because you have come to sound like nothing more than a partisan Democrat, spinning anything you can to create support for party votes.

Tim,
I read Zorn. He spins like a top and disemmbles like a political hack. The real story is here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_...
According to this somehwat more objective source (it gets the facts right even if it seems disturbingly untroubled by infanticide), Obama lied, pure and simple, and then went on to call his accusers liars. The term "infanticide" is only inapt if one somehow believes that a born infant is not a person if he is not viable. I would hope that you have enough of a conscience to agree that such a belief is unacceptable for a thinking Christian.
Illinois most certainly did not "already have a law on the books that covered the same thing." In the context of infants born as a consequence of a failed abortion, the existing law had been interpreted to require ordinary care only if such infants were viable. The BAIPA clarified that ordinary care was due regardless of viability. Obama and the rest of the abortion rights crowd were simply worried that extending rights to non-viable infants born in failed abortions could chip away at the the viability rationale of Roe and progeny. In their view, the distinction between viable and non-viable was too important to risk for born infants who were not going to live anyway. That is why they are so careful to call such infants fetuses, even though a born fetus is a legal and medical oxymoron.
Obama's explanation that his opposition turned only on the need for the inclusion of the federal act's neutrality provision does not withstand factual scrutiny. As explained by fact-check.org, it simply is not true.
Finally, as to Roosevelt and his policies your simplistic big versus small thesis cannot be squared with the UCLA findings. That said, I hardly blame Roosevelt. It is unfair to evaluate his performance (or Hoover's) using a modern lens that assumes contemporary economic knowledge. Nonetheless, the notion that his policies, on balance, assisted us out of the recession may be the conventional wisdom among historians, but is very much an idiosyncratic one among economists. Instead, most of his policies were counterproductive, though I agree that his later polices were less so. Roosevelt certainly did not cause the recession, but he did prolong it. I just don't see any reason to vilify him for this. It is by no means clear who would have done a better job. However, any idea that his administration gave us a template for successfully navigating through our current contraction is extremely wrong-headed and dangerous.

Tim Lacy, what you don't understand is that contraception and avoiding conception are two entirely different things. Contraception literally means "Against conception" -- it deliberately and artificially frustrates the natural procreative processes of the human body.
NFP does not do this; it is not contraception. With NFP, you obtain information about the natural procreative processes of the human body and use that information to make a choice to abstain or not abstain. With NFP, you work WITH the body's natural procreative process designed by God, not against it. As a previous poster said, it can be used illicitly, but the method itself is not illicit. This is not true of artificial contraception.
I recommend reading Janet Smith's Contraception: Why Not? for a more thorough explanation.

sorry, I meant "neutrality clauses" not "conscience clauses"

Maybe the Illinois Democrats try justifying their position against the new BAIPA laws by making recourse to similar laws already on the books, but this is a cop out for them, and nothing for you to use justifying their position. Obviously, these laws were not effective at saving the lives of babies. The whole reason such new laws were being fought for is because of several known instances where born infants were left to die and, upon investigations, no charges were brought against anybody for such horrendous deeds. New laws were necessary. If I'm not mistaken, such a law is now passed too. And anyway, according to Zorn's article, contrary to your characterization of events, the argument primarily focused around conscience clauses, not multiple laws (though I do remember Obama discussing the multiple law thing as a justification but, as I said, obviously that law didn't protect any babies).
There's no such problem decrying contraception given the Church's acceptance of NFP. Briefly stated, contraception introduces a foreign component into sex, a physical or chemical barrier to essentially distort the marital union. NFP involves no such barrier, no change of the marital act. The ramifications spiritually and psychologically for the two approaches to family planning are dramatic and far reaching for couples and families.

Tim Lacy,
I don't practice NFP (as I gather you do), but - as I understand it - it can only be superficially compared to using artificial contraceptives. There is a radical (from radix, or root) difference between the two methods.
While both methods are used to avoid pregnancy, only one can also be used to promote pregnancy - NFP. This radical difference speaks to the very heart of NFP.
Maybe someone on this board who practices NFP can comment, but as I understand it NFP allows the couple to practice the supernatural virtue of chastity. Surely, some may abuse the practice for selfish means. But that's not the fault of NFP. That's due to our sinful nature.
The birth control pill and other artifical forms of birth control, on the other hand, can only be about selfishness.
Pres. Obama wants to make artifical contraception widely available (and probably for free, paid by our tax dollars). Here is a quote from Pres. Obama (from Olson's article):
"Access to contraceptives is essential to lowering the rate of unintended pregnancies in this country, and we need to make sure these drugs are affordable and accessible. I thank Planned Parenthood and this bill’s co-sponsors for supporting this common-sense and necessary legislation." (Emphasis added)
Once again, Pres. Obama's approach to reducing abortions is so radically opposed to Catholic teaching that I don't know how the two can be reconciled.

Adam D: Thanks for engaging me on the Zorn article. I respectfully disagree with your statement: "It just means all the Democrats held the same extreme position as Obama." As I read the piece, it means that all IL Democrats believed that existing partial birth protections in IL were/are satisfactory. They didn't believe that a second doctor was needed to verify the decision of the first. That doesn't appear to be an extreme position in light of BAIPA and IL law.
As for the Olson link and the issues it raises, I thank Nicholas for it. Speaking objectively, trying to empathize/understand the non-Catholic view of contraception and abortion, the last part of the Olson link is troubling. Olson is saying (for us), that the 1960 book by Stanislas de Lestapis, *La limitation des naissances*, is, or should be, the authoritative word/work on whether contraception increases the need for abortion. Surely more recent work verifies or confirms this? I love Humanae Vitae, but this is no way to argue on its behalf. Why? Because those of us who practice NFP also seek at times to avoid conception. Those times have been legitimated by Church theology (i.e. married but out of work, etc.), so the same arguments applied around Lestapis' work could be applied to orthodox practicing Catholics seeking, due to recognized circumstances, to prevent conception. Lestapis and those following that line, in a narrow way, as articulated by Olson per the 1980 H&PR article, are undermining "the other hand" of Church teaching by advocating a kind of "Quiver Full" mentality. I would hate to be in the eminently uncomfortable position, as a Church-loving Catholic, of making intramural arguments against NFP. Maybe I'm misunderstanding Olson or Lestapis' point?
- TL

I've been setting back and watching the responses of the seemingly easily "patronized" TL. These are my observations. This IS NOT intended as an "ad hominem" attack on anyone but my observation of the tenor of some of the exchanges. They have occasionally seemed rather shrill for "those on the same side."
Several responses could be taken from the "Rules for Radicals".
Rule 3 "Go outside the experience of your opponent" This rule when coupled with a Credentialism can be used to establish a "better than thou" position.
Rule 5 "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon". and Rule #11 "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it ... Ignore attempts to shift the blame". "You are patronizing me!"
Rule #10 "... Avoid being trapped by ....'..What would you do'"
If you are trying to make us think, I’m all for it. But it is hard for me to understand how the stridency helps.
I live by very strong orthodox (small O as in Roman) Catholic values. I believe ALL the Catholic Church teaches. Thanks to Nicholas for the link to Ignatius Scoop. Maybe there is no common ground and we do really need to "gird our loins" to stand our ground in prayer and meaningful objection. I will once again join my voice to the chorus of "Actions speak louder than words".
For those others in IL, the house of representative intends to bring the "domestic partners" law to a vote on Tues or Wed of next week. Some of us will send our emails this weekend. The earliest chance to call to register an opinion by telephone is Tuesday. Perfect "under the radar" timing. They got buried under calls about the ILFOCA so it is not surprising that they attempt to hide it late in the session.
Finally, as a newbie to this combox, I don't want to belittle the ongoing actions of those swimming against the tide with organizations like DFLA. I admit I had to google it to see what the reference was to. You are in my prayers.

well, my last sentence was pretty garbled. I meant, what content in that link mitigates the claim that Obama's position is monstrous?

Well, after reading that link from Tim Lacy, I don't come away any more impressed with Obama's position on the born-alive legislations he opposed in Illinois. Zorn surely expands on the issue to show it as a more drawn out, complicated affair than some depictions of it with a lot of argumentation focusing around neutrality clauses to make the Illinois legislation identical with the federal law and insuring all the pro-abortion folk that these laws are not meant to infringe on the basic rights to abortion secured in roe-V-wade. But according to Zorn Obama continued to oppose such legislation even after such neutrality clauses were written in.
I think Zorn's argument breaks down in this paragraph:
The history makes it clear that Obama's role in delaying "born-alive" legislation was minor and based on very understandable reservations of many pro abortion rights legislators in Springfield. There is simply no way to paint him as an "extremist" when multiple versions of this same legislation failed in both chambers, often over bi-partisan concerns -- though Jill Stanek is apparently having some success pushing this angle with those who don't have the patience you've had to wade through all the bills and arguments.

He's correct that opposition to such legislation was partisan. As was support of such legislation. And the arguments were indeed spread out over many slightly different bills. But the fact is still the same: Obama consistently voted against bills meant to save the life of a baby, alive outside the womb. I don't care if opposition to these bills was partisan or drawn out or nearly unanimous. The popularity of a position doesn't make the position less extreme. It just means all the Democrats held the same extreme position as Obama.
What the heck about that link makes you think Obama's record on this matter mitigates his monstrous stance on this matter, Tim Lacy?

While Mr. Obama was at Notre Dame, he should have had a long chat with professor emeritus Charles Rice who authored "50 Questions On The Natural Law: What It Is And Why We Need It".

I'll admit that I haven't fully followed this thread; and that I have nothing original to offer.
However, I thought I'd draw attention to this: At Ignatius Insight Scoop, Carl Olson just posted an entry touching on Pres. Obama's abortion policy that ties in with the flow of the discussion here.
Let me summarize the article:
Pres. Obama's Director of Domestic Policy, Melody Barnes stated, "It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions.” Rather, it is the goal to "reduce the need for abortion."
But, how to reduce the need? Simple. By increasing the amount of contraceptives. However, statistics demonstrate that cultures that adopt a "contraceptive mentality" also see an increase in abortions, not a decrease.
I don't see how Pres. Obama's approach shares ANY common ground with our Catholic faith.

Mike,
First, read Eric Zorn. But I'll summarize: Illinois already had a law on the books that covered the same thing. But don't take my word for it: follow the steps of an IL reporter/columnist that covered the BAIPA for years.
Second, those UCLA economists are restating what every historian has known for year---and what FDR's Brain Trust knew also: the first New Deal wasn't as effective as they hoped. And it took them some years to make corrections. The culprit? The first New Deal favored "bigness," both corporate and in terms of government programs. They also underspent. The second New Deal favored a more ground up approach, emphasizing smallness, or small to medium-sized business. They also increased gov't spending again in 37-38 after a temporary dip in late 36-37.
It's not patronizing when, as an historian, I know what I'm talking about. And if I took a negative tone in this thread at any point, it was only in response either to Mr. Akins' original post or subsequent comments.
- TL

The most patronizing poster on this thread is sensitive to being patronized -- that is both rich and unsurprising.
First, I invite you to explain why our President opposed the following legislative language: "(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." I have a hunch that will result in the most productive discussion.
Second, I do share your skepticism that Roosevelt's deficit spending actually prolonged the Depression, at least in any serious way. But you dramatically overstate your case regarding Roosevelt generally. See http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policie... . Your notion that the policies that rendered a recession into a great depression can be layed entirely at the doorstep of Hoover is simply not sustainable. The truth is that Roosevelt initally continued many of Hoover's mistaken polices, and then experimented with many others -- some sound, many not.

Dear Mike,
Thanks for the patronizing set of comments.
You wrote: "Obama's efforts in sabatoging the Illinois Born Alive Act were pure evil." You're wrong--both on my awareness and the historical situation. Period. As an IL citizen and an historian, I'm well aware of all this. On IL Senator Obama and the BAIPA, read this: http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ez.... Keep reading Zorn for a detailed, accurate look at what happened in recent IL political history.
You wrote: "Great Depression was caused and sustained by money supply mismanagement and protectionist trade polices." There's some truth in this. But that mismanagement and those policy errors were ~all~ perpetuated in the 1920s under Republican Presidents. On FDR and the New Deal, well, Keynesian economic policies were implemented alongside monetary policy changes, which has somewhat complicated economic interpretations on the success of the New Deal. My only point in the comment above is that the New Deal, in contrast to comments by Mary and bill912, in no way caused the Great Depression. At best that is an anachronistic interp of history.
Thanks for the Roe offer, but that's unnecessary. I'll let you have the last word.
- Tim

Mr. Lacy:
"Baby killing" is quite apt I'm afraid. While an Illinois legislator Obama successfully quarterbacked the state effort to kill legislation that would have required hospitals to provide ordinary care to "babies" born as a consequence of a failed abortion. At that time state law interpretive authority provided that such care was required only if the attending physician pronounced the baby viable. Accordingly, a baby born alive was not entitled to ordinary care if it was not viable (i.e., was going to die). Consequently, live babies were being discarded as trash. Obama lead the opposition to the remedial legislation, cynically and falsely stating that such legislation was (i) unnecessary since hospitals already were required to provide ordinary care and (ii) dangerous because it would undercut Roe. Obama's efforts in sabatoging the Illinois Born Alive Act were pure evil, and nothing you read in his books can change that. I find it rather incredible that you would not be aware of these facts, being that you are a historian and this is all rather recent history.
Furthermore, my undergraduate training is in economics, not history. You should know that there is widespread agreement among economists that the Great Depression was caused and sustained by money supply mismanagement and protectionist trade polices. Whether the eventual implementation of aggressive Keynesian fiscal policy (i.e., deficit spending) was actually remedial is a matter of debate among economists, though most would, I think, say that it probably helped somewhat. Ultimately, the problem is that economic contractions do end naturally assuming sound monetary policy, and while Keynesian fiscal policies can also help they are difficult to execute due to timing challenges. To be more precise, the Keynesian multiplier effect often (probably usually) does not become effective until the economy is already rebounding organically, in which case it then operates to actually repress the rebound because of higher interest rates due to massive government borrowing. I could go on but it would just get pedantic and mathematical.
Finally, my graduate training is in law, and I taught constitutional law at a law school for many years. I'm happy to explain Roe to you as well if you wish.

I'm coming late to this party, but I have a question about enforcement. I was born after Roe v Wade, so I don't know what enforcement consisted of in states where abortion was illegal. What was the punishment for doctor and patient? I recall reading (perhaps mistakenly) that there was only a handful of prosecutions around abortion cases prior to Roe v Wade.
Because abortion has been legal and available for some 30+ years now, making it illegal now would require some rather clear enforcement guidelines.
Has the Church, select Bishops, or leaders of the Church posed ideas for enforcement? Jail time for the doctor alone? (the one performing the abortion.) Jail time or other sanctions against the woman (and her husband/partner, if complicit) as well? Closing of hospitals that perform abortions?
To just say that it needs to be illegal without considering enforcement seems a little short-sighted to me. What will be the deterent?

Dear Matheus,
Typepad seems to be fickle or inconsistent or maybe it periodically gets Star Trek envy and decides it wants to reboot, too :)
The Chicken

Hey TMC
The Link Monster ate your links :)

The (latest) links came back! The monster had a congestion and vomited them.

Dear Matheus,
The Link Monster ate your links :)
The Chicken

Just in case Typepad's link-eating feature that TMC has mentioned is turned on, here and here (I suppose) are the two links from my previous comment.

I'm curious as to what course of action the "seamless garment" Catholics would recommend if - after increasing government spending at every level for social programs - the hoped for reduction in abortions fails to materialize.
How long before you think we will be able to quantify a reduction in abortions? 5 years? 10 Years? 20?
If abortion rates remain as they are, or even increase, what response would you envision? At what point would the drastic measure of working to legally restrict abortion be appropriate?

Tim Lacy,
I pray that you and others will be able to release the strangehold that the abortion rights lobby has on the Democratic Party. I have voted for pro-life Democrat candidates before, and I'm sure I'll do so again.
However, there seems to be a glass ceiling as far as how much influence a pro-lifer is allowed to have in the Democratic party. I hope you and your colleagues at DFLA are able to break this as well.

Being the minority opinion might make one feel like everybody is ganging up on you. I know I've sometimes felt that way (not here), but that doesn't mean it is the case.

By the way, Steve Kellmeyer has just written about the experience of an exchange with mental gymnasts.
He also wrote about the issue discussed here and what happens when Catholics do what Tim Lacy types wants them to do.

"On Obama and the cultural battle in general, I think he's an ally to a point. I haven't emphasized that "point" here because, yes, I've been fighting the monster/babykiller interpretive angle. Let's view him a bit more to the middle, then our criticisms/contributions will have some weight. It's easier to convince a friend of your deeper views than bullying. Right now the Church is in bully mode---both within and without. And I do think that Obama views the Church as bullying people ... "
But this is still overly optimistic, Tim L. Maybe he has accomplished only a little policy-wise in advancing abortion "rights" as president but bearly all of his major appointments have been for individuals well known as staunchly pro-abortion and his stance in Chicago against extending protection to infants born alive from botched abortions is simply monstrous. All of his votes as a senator and all his policies in Chicago make for a very clear policy record. Which is something because he had been remarkably non-commital to so many other policies, voting merely "present" on so many other votes.
And, to nuance the concession I made to you, regarding the fight for a culture before a legal fight, I wouldn't mean it sound like I'm opposed (or that you should be) to overturning Roe V Wade today. Abortion should be illegalized as soon as possible. I think the point to be taken from your objection is just that this is unlikely to be accomplishable in a culture that so widely accepts abortion. You have a point insofar as a pragmatic understanding of what's possible but from your back and forth with Tim J I get the impression you'd even reject supporting an overturn of Roe V Wade right now. If it could be done, it should be done because it's right and moral.
Now, to say that the Church is bullying and that this is less effective than a more conciliatory tone, I say, posh! The Church, whatever Obama might think of their tone, has been conciliatory for decades! And the culture has sunk to where it is. On the contrary, I think it is only because the Church has become more vocal (beginning with Obama's presidential campaign) especially on life issues, that I think we even see some conciliatory *speeches* from him. The Church doesn't need to get more polite with our president, the Church needs to assert herself yet more. Maybe then these concessions in his speeches will become concessions in actual policies.

"Exactly. Catholics believe that certain types of birth control are abortifacients."
That's a bit silly. A thing is abortafacient or it isn't. It is not a matter of belief or opinion.
"Catholics agree that the Morning After Pill is an abortion."
If the morning after pill does not result in an abortion, then why do people take it? What do they hope to achieve by taking it?
"Catholics believe fetuses are people, not fetuses..."
Again, fetuses are either human beings or they are not. How you or I feel about it is immaterial to the fact, one way or the other. If fetuses are not human beings, the current level of scientific knowledge places the burden of proof squarely on those who deny the status of fetuses as human beings.
"...we live in a multi-religious society and scientists do not all agree on when a fetus becomes human."
It looks like we owe the Inca, the Maya and the Aztecs a big apology for our overreaction to their practice of ritual human sacrifice.

TimJ (and Jimmy): That's not exactly a mean-spirited cavil, but something I believed when I wrote it. And it was a reaction to the "babykilling" repetition in the post. Even so, I conceded it wasn't the best in my May 19, 2009 7:22:49 AM comment to Adam D. - TL

May I remind you, Tim L., that you opened your commentary by very civilly informing Jimmy that he should stick to apologetics and canon law?
If you had agreed with his opinion, would you have offered the same condescension?

TimJ: You wrote: "Then what are we all arguing over?" My reply: Exactly. Catholics believe that certain types of birth control are abortifacients. Catholics agree that the Morning After Pill is an abortion. Catholics believe fetuses are people, not fetuses or a blob of cells. Not all of our Christian, Jewish, and Islamic brethren believe these things. Ergo, as a society---even one with religion---we can't agree on what are abortions. This is what Obama is tapping into: we live in a multi-religious society and scientists do not all agree on when a fetus becomes human. Catholics agree, but we live an non-Catholic society.
See, I'm civil when addressed civilly! :) - TL

"Specious analogy."
I disagree, obviously, or I wouldn't have offered it.
"A majority of society agrees on what the definition of amputation is. A majority doesn't on abortion and its legality."
A majority of society doesn't agree on the definition of "abortion"? Then what are we all arguing over? On the contrary, what defines "an amputation" or "an abortion" is very widely agreed on... the disagreement is over the moral dimensions of the acts involved.
I take it, then, that if a majority agreed that elective amputation was a legitimate moral choice, you would support legalizing it? It's not far off.

Look Jimmy, my comments were civil from the start, but became less so after being attacked and flamed. And you've made no effort to curb things until now. Indeed, I'm more regular with your blog than you know. I've been a silent observer for almost two years. But bill912's regular presence here gives him no more right to rudeness than any "newbie." - TL

FYI: For Mary and bill912 and Jimmy A on deficit spending: http://www.robert-h-frank.com/PDFs/EV.03.22.09.pdf. Robert H. Frank is an economist at Cornell. - TL

G.K. Chesterton was such am impressive debator because in addition to always being right he was always charitable. An argument can be made on any subject without trying to demean someone or call their intelligence into question.

And, who are you? Why hide behind a pseudonym? It contributes to a feeling that you're being less than sincere, that you're trolling and flaming
This is why newbies should act a little circumspectly when starting to comment on a board.
In fact, Bill912 is a regular and is not a troll or flamer.
If Tim Lacy were a regular, he'd know that, but he's a newbie.
In general, Lacy should be a bit more circumspect in how he deals with people.
Thus far he has come across as ill mannered.

Addressing a few illegitimate jabs against me:
1. Matheus: Thanks for the productive contribution! Jerk.
2. bill912: Beat...head...against...wall. Please come back and raise your hand when you (and Mary) do your assigned homework.
3. Tim J: Specious analogy. A majority of society agrees on what the definition of amputation is. A majority doesn't on abortion and its legality. You're better over using slavery, but never forget that the solution to that problem was a federal one.
Now on to substance:
Adam D---Thanks for your civil reply and the concessions. I understand what you're thinking, but again, it's still a bit early to judge the administration on what it's done/undone. The first crisis has been the economy, which is already shown to have correlation with abortion---hazarding a NYT link: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/more.... On Obama and the cultural battle in general, I think he's an ally to a point. I haven't emphasized that "point" here because, yes, I've been fighting the monster/babykiller interpretive angle. Let's view him a bit more to the middle, then our criticisms/contributions will have some weight. It's easier to convince a friend of your deeper views than bullying. Right now the Church is in bully mode---both within and without. And I do think that Obama views the Church as bullying people into agreement rather than being those that walk alongside in love.
Dave Mueller---Thanks for your very civil reply. You'll note that I didn't paint the situation, in my 7:33 AM comment today, as an either/or. I came down in the middle, but caveated the means of change by timeframe and culture. On how Democrats are helping effect change, please give a fair look at the growing influence of pro-life Democrats and the very important lobbying group Democrats for Life of America (DFLA). The latter is playing an increasingly prominent role, and helps explain why the Democrat segment of pro-lifers having more success with Obama. I think they've been critical in getting him to change course on conscience clauses. It's critical that Catholics not be shoe-horned into either not voting or voting Republican every election. Catholics deserve choices, and DFLA helps enlarge the sphere. The Church and pro-lifers everywhere would be wise to POUR money into DFLA---if for no other reason than to even the playing field. Per your other comment, I did mean Bush II. But, conservative Catholics weren't hard enough on him in 04, and they paid the price with losing influence/objectivity with regard to Obama/McCain (not that McCain was in any way a superior choice).
- TL

As Tim L., changing the culture and changing the laws is not an either/or. We can and must work on both. I do not see, however, how a Democratic administration does anything to help change the culture to be pro-life. If anything it reinforces the lie that it is possible to be "compassionate" (the word the Dems would like to have voters see themselves as) and yet favor the right to abortion.

"Look you're baiting/flaming me."
No, I pointed out that Mary correctly stated facts which you find inconvenient, and I pointed out your bad manners toward Mary.
"...but has been proven wrong since by more historians than otherwise."
Huh? Rightness/wrongness is proven by evidence, not historians.

Tim Lacy,
Should elective amputation be safe, legal and rare? Why, or why not?
If it remains illegal, people will just get back-alley amputations, or do it themselves. What we need to focus on is changing the culture.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,448005,00.html

Tim L.
I'm not intent on pressing the Mexico City policy. What I want to press on you is your overly complimentary descriptions of Obama when his actions and policies to date have communicated a message nearly the polar opposite the lovely idealism of compromises in his speeches.
I appreciate your perspective and think you've got some good points. It's rare that I think someone scores a point on SDG in these comboxes (he's such a sharp individual) but I'll agree with your last response to him that our battle is cultural, after which we can make it a legal battle but you keep indicating a belief that Obama is our ally in this cultural battle. This is just plain absurd. If all I had to go by were his speeches I'd be wont to agree in the limited sense that you describe him as an ally but when I look at what the man's actually done the picture is clearly of a man opposing the pro-life movement at every possible turn. How can you look at his record and talk so glowingly of him?

Good morning Tim,
You stated, "Dave Mueller: Where were folks when the Republican Catholic Partisans did this all through the 90s with Bush?"
Do you mean the current decade with Bush II? At any rate, there were plenty who pointed out, and continue to point out, that many Catholics were far too comfy with the GOP, and too easily disagreed with the Pope's assessment that the Iraq war was not just. Torture is another example of the same.
It's definitely a danger on both sides, there is no question about that. However, I think it is a very major stretch, to the point of tearing the fabric of reality, to say that Obama is not a pro-abortion candidate (hint: watch his actions and votes, not his words, and even in his words the truth sometimes slips out) and even worse to say that the Dems are somehow more pro-life than the GOP.
I think a fair assessment would say that the GOP in general is somewhat tepid on abortion, but Bush II and the GOP did (1) reinstate the Mexico City policy; (2) restrict ESCR such that no new embryos were being created for research, at least not on the federal dime; (3) used the bully pulpit to put the phrase "culture of life" in the common parlance; (4) create conscience protection laws; (5) enact laws stopping partial birth abortion and other abortion restrictions; (6) put Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court, and that's just off the top of my head.
In all six of those cases, President Obama has enacted or has stated support for policies, laws, and judges much more friendly to legal abortion and Roe vs. Wade than Bush II did.

But Tim, how is culture going to change if culture itself sends the message that baby killing is okay? The mental gymnastics you're going through to justify abortion are astonishing.
As a historian, you should be aware that in many instances, laws changed before the culture did -- for example, slavery and racism.
Also, see my earlier post regarding the heroin analogy. Coulsd you respond?