The Lessons of Notre Dame

For many of us, PRO-LIFE means be confidents expecting a NEW LIFE as promised for the same JESUSCHRIST, he has the authority to make us a NEW CREATION, even today we are NEW CREATION if we stay away of controversial issues like abortion, health care, gays marriages, "wars again terror', invasions to other countries, and be associates with THE WORLD. That means A NEW ORDER, following the footsteps of THE KING, being kind, lovers, mercyifull, that shows us as PRO-LIFE.
Where is that law? into our hearts because we learned what the gospel means, that really invites to others to see to the sky and say: THANKS GOD FOR GIVE US YOUR ONLY SON AS TEACHER, WE BORN AGAIN ANY TIME WE HAVE A NEW DAY TO SHOW YOUR MERCY. be PRO-LIFE you too and show you, read the gospel LIVE THE GOSPEL, and let to others to burn their ocious with their disputes that make DARKNESS ignoring the God's plan of salvation, they are there to see the difference.

If this country is so "pro-life", why do we have the highest infant mortality rate of the industrialized world? Why does a baby born in a country with "socialized medicine", including Britain, Canada, and Cuba have better chance of seeing his or her 3rd birthday than a baby born in the U.S.?
Ironically, the states in the heart of the pro-life Bible belt also have the highest infant mortality rates: Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Georgia. All of these are represented by GOP Senators. All of these senators are opposed to affordable health care, including pre-natal care for expectant mothers.

I can't help wondering how many women resort to abortions because they have no access to medical care. For so-called "pro-lifers" it's perfectly OK to deny women the medical care they need, and it's perfectly OK to force them to have a baby they can't support. It's also perfectly OK if this baby dies because of a lack of adequate pre-natal and post-natal care. That doesn't sound very pro-life to me.

Beyond the protests and polemics, what did we learn?


What we learned was that the conservatives who bear the "party of hate" weight of the liberal name callers will be more acceptant of new ideas and even ideas that are counter to the very core of their beliefs long before a "pro-life" speaker would be given time to complete a sentence because of university sanctioned hecklers at say Columbia University!

to use the forum of a graduation to further discuss the issues of abortion would have been disrespectful to the graduates. He spoke on the issue and then moved on to what a graduation speech should be

Catholics should not be single issue voters, but the right to life is the foundation of all human rights and therefore the most important issue. On this and all other issues Catholics are obligated by their faith and intellectual honesty to vote according to their conscience, formed by the teachings of the Church. If they don't do this then they don't really believe in the Church's teaching and should therefore stop identifying themselves as Catholic. This applies to universities as well: if a university has decided not to be obedient to the teaching authority of the Church it has decided not to be Catholic. This is Notre Dame's position and the position of all "Catholics" who put their judgment above the Church's teaching. It's OK to decide not to be Catholic, you have free will. It's not OK to pretend to be Catholic when you aren't--that's misrepresentation.
Tom Hamel

The primary issue that played out at Notre Dame was really a fight within the Catholic church. Even though most Catholics agree that abortion is wrong (leaving rape cass aside), Catholics break down like the general population as to whether, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, there should be a right to have an abortion (at least very early in the pregnancy). The issue is not, as the church is couching it, whether abortion is wrong. The issue is whether, where the "personhood" of a fetus within the meaning of the constitution is informed principally by religious beliefs, the religious beliefs and teachings of the Catholic church should constitute the law applicable to all, believer and nonbeliever/non-follower alike. Absent a constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court gets to decide that question.

Under the constitution, it doesn't matter that a just-conceived fetus is human or that God loves it. Because we have a pluralistic democracy governed by a constitution, the issue is a legal one, and the "pro life" side can only have its view become law if and when the Supreme Court holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the fifth amendment, "no PERSON shall be derprived of life ... without due process of law." The court may one day do that. If, however, it does not (or until it does), the goal should be to modify Roe v. Wade to move up the point at which the interests of the unborn child and the state outweigh the interest of the mother in not carrying the child to term. Science as developed since Roe was decided supports moving that point up.

I would suggest that Justice Kennedy's decision in the partial-borth abortion case last year, while unlikely to result in stopping a single abortion, provides a virtual road map for how state legislatures can craft statutes cutting back on abortion which will withstand constitutional scrutiny.

The Church really needs to ask itself, does the church want to reduce abortions, or is it primarily concerned with obtaining agreement inside Catholics' heads to the church's teachings?