In order to make life easier for Notre Dame’s president to resign his position in disgrace after inviting the avidly pro-abortionist President Obama to speak and receive an award on May 17th at the university commencement, Randall Terry has obligingly drafted Rev. John Jenkins’ letter of resignation.

If hope truly does spring eternal, we can hope Father Jenkins wises up, smells his forgotten priestly vows, and signs it.

If he refuses due to the ravages of his sin of pride on top of turning his back on his Catholicity and the moral foundations of Notre Dame, it would be an even more powerful demonstration of support for the right to life of pre-born babies if the faculty and graduates play hooky on May 17th, stand with their backs to Jenkins and Obama during their addresses, or respectfully vacate the Joyce Center when they take the dais.

One wag wishfully suggested, “Notre Dame has recently redesigned the carved inscription above the side door entrance to the Basilica of the Sacred Heart. What used to read “God, Country, Notre Dame” now proudly declares “Obama, Country, Notre Dame:” http://chatteringteeth.blogspot.com/2009/05/notre-dames-new-motto-obama-country.html. I would disagree with the country reference, as well.

The Resignation Letter of Rev. John I. Jenkins, CSC

To the Board of Trustees:

When I took holy vows as a priest, I had high hopes and deep desires to serve Christ and His Church with valor, and without wavering in fidelity.

Regrettably, I have failed in my duty as a priest, . . .

(Read the rest of Randall’s resignation letter submitted on Father Jenkins’ behalf at http://genelalor.com/)

Millions of abortions is a lot of abortions, and, no, I can’t believe that at least some of them—probably a lot of them—were the first choice.

Do you have a link for any of those studies you mention?

I don’t want to dictate the choices of others. On the other hand, I don’t condone murder, which is what I believe abortion to be. A woman’s right to choose ends where somebody else’s body begins. By the way, you never addressed my points about choice: is sexual reproduction the only area where people are to be allowed choice, whereas religion, and matters of conscience, are to be dictated by the courts?

Peace, happiness, jollie-wollies and candy canes! Hope you had a nice Easter.

Except, of course, abortion isn’t “rare”, and it isn’t always safe. It is legal, but, then, so was slavery.

Legal abortion is safer than illegal abortion. Better sex education and contraception reduces the frequency of abortion. You claim based only on the number of abortions performed that it is being taken as a first resort – but this is not what studies find.

Um, so the baby is an attacker. Oooookayyyy. So, you mean the kid—which is completely, physically dependent for its survival on its mother is actually attacking the woman? For purposes of this thread, or otherwise, that’s one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard.

No the baby is not an attacker, but if the baby poses a threat to the life or health of the mother, it poses a similar danger, and may be similarly dispatched using the same principles.

Again, as I said, this is typical lefthink: the baby is a monster, pregnancy a disease, and women are hapless, defenseless creatures, with no self-control, who must rely on abortion to rescue them from the horror of their own offspring.

You can make up whatever odd theories you like. Nobody claims the baby is a monster, or pregnancy a disease. Nobody is claiming that women are hapless, defenseless creatures with no self-control. All I am claiming is that a woman has an absolute right to control her own reproductive decisions.

You might prefer a world in which you can dictate the choices of others, but I personally believe that we each are entitled to control our own bodies.

Peace.

DS

What does “Dave” fail to understand about the figure of 50,000,000 abortions performed since 1973 ?

That’s approximately 1/6 of the total current population of the United States that was aborted.

What does “Dave” fail to understand about the fact that, following so called “legalization” in 1973, abortion simply became a means of birth control for many women ?

Is “Dave” so preoccupied parroting the party line (on this and so many other topics) that his brain is unable to integrate simple factual information ?

This frequency suggests to me that it’s being taken as a first resort, not a last one, and, what privacy? We all know what Planned Parenthood does, it’s got clinics in every city. What seems obvious to me is that pregnant women in difficult situations are, basically, being told, “Well, you can solve this by getting an abortion!” Forget about actually trying to assist them, and their unborn children, or offering them the alternative of adoption; just get an abortion, get out of our faces, and stop bothering us already!

It’s also a great way for men to get out of committing to their partners, or having to pay child support—which, I think, accounts for the actual popularity of abortion. Privacy and womens’ control of their bodies, be damned! It’s about making less easier for men who don’t want to be bothered being responsible.

Um, so the baby is an attacker. Oooookayyyy. So, you mean the kid—which is completely, physically dependent for its survival on its mother is actually attacking the woman? For purposes of this thread, or otherwise, that’s one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard.

Seriously, if childbearing were that dangerous, and babies so menacing to their moms, women should seriously consider entering a convent and/or having themselves sterilized to avoid encountering such deadly monstrosities (I don’t think that’s what you’re suggesting, but that’s about what it works out too).

In fact the only way to be completely safe might be for women to forgo sex altogether! Then they’d never have to worry about (cue in scary music) THE MENACE OF BABIES!

(Somehow, I don’t think you mean that, either. But, if pregnancy is that deadly, it’s about what it works out to).

Dave, you’ve really got to stop watching all those Rosemary’s Baby type horror movies that started coming out in the 60’s, and all those Lifetime Channel soap operas, where every pregnancy is a crisis, and always involves something like the baby being a mutant and/or giving the mother a life-threatening disease! Again, as I said, this is typical lefthink: the baby is a monster, pregnancy a disease, and women are hapless, defenseless creatures, with no self-control, who must rely on abortion to rescue them from the horror of their own offspring.

Peace, gumdrops, rainbows, dancing teddy bears and Happy Easter!

Dave, are you really comparing a baby to an armed attacker?

For the purposes of this thread, yes.

Pregnancy is not a “danger”, it is how the human race reproduces.

The human race reproduces via a method that is frequently dangerous to the survival of the mother. It is also a “danger” in cases of rape, incest and other unintended pregnancies.

Furthermore, do you really expect us to believe that every last one of those 5 million (and counting) abortions performed since Roe v. Wade were all performed to save the mother’s life, and for no other reason?

Of course not. I simply expect you to believe that every last one of those represents a woman who made a difficult decision, and should be respected for that. But you would rather demonize.

Abortion is performed for many reasons, and those reasons are sometimes, by their very nature, private. It is a last resort and one that should not be stigmatized. Safe, legal and rare is still a very cogent formula.

Peace.

DS