UPDATE The Full text of the letter.
CNS has a piece about the reaction of the Superior of the Holy Cross Fathers (who staff Notre Dame), to the controversy.
Head of Holy Cross order asks Obama to rethink position on abortion
By John Thavis
Catholic News ServiceROME (CNS) — The head of the Holy Cross religious order that founded the University of Notre Dame has written to U.S. President Barack Obama and asked him to rethink his positions on abortion and other life issues.
U.S. Father Hugh W. Cleary, Holy Cross superior general in Rome, said that when Obama receives an honorary degree from the Indiana university and delivers the commencement address in May, he should take to heart the objections of Catholics who have been scandalized by the invitation.
Father Cleary asked the president to use the occasion to "give your conscience a fresh opportunity to be formed anew in a holy awe and reverence before human life in every form at every stage — from conception to natural death."
The 13-page letter, dated March 22, was made available to Catholic News Service in Rome. Father Cleary also prepared an abridged version of the text as an "open letter" to the president, which was expected to be published on the Web site of America magazine. [Right! Web 0.0 lives on!]
Father Cleary’s letter began by congratulating Obama on being awarded an honorary doctorate from Notre Dame, and said the university was honored to have him deliver the commencement address.
The visit should be a "teachable moment" for all involved, Father Cleary said. [And this is the fundamental problem. The invitation to "rethink" his positions doesn’t override the problems inherent in the original invitation.]
He asked the president to take advantage of the occasion to "rethink, through prayerful wrestling with your own conscience, your stated positions on the vital ‘life issues’ of our day, particularly in regard to abortion, embryonic forms of stem-cell research and your position on the Freedom of Choice Act."
Father Cleary repeatedly quoted Obama’s words at the National Prayer Breakfast in February: "There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being." Sadly, the priest said, legalized abortion implies that a person’s choice for personal freedom supersedes this obligation to protect and nurture human life.
"An ‘unwanted’ child comes in many forms: an untimely presence; a disabled or deformed creature; an embryo of the wrong sex; a child conceived out of wedlock; a child conceived through a hideous crime," he said.
Father Cleary said the United States has a history of defining the parameters of human life "when it suits our self-interest." One example was slavery, justified by denying that a black human being of African descent was fully human, he said.
Father Cleary noted that many U.S. Catholics today feel their beliefs are dismissed without the serious attention they deserve. Catholics recognize that they live in a pluralistic society, he said, but also believe they have something vital to say about life issues."We want to be taken seriously. We insist on taking ourselves seriously; [which will really begin with a true liturgical reform… but I digress…] that is why there has been so much protest and turmoil in regard to your presence at Notre Dame," he wrote.
He suggested that at his Notre Dame appearance Obama speak about how Catholics "can be taken seriously for our faith convictions without being dismissed offhandedly and shunned; it is too offensive to be ignored, it is unacceptable."
Father Clearly said in his letter that he had been deluged with angry e-mails regarding Notre Dame’s invitation to the president. He explained that he has no authority over the decision-making by the university, which is directed by a board of fellows and a board of trustees. ["It’s not my fault!"]
Priests and brothers of the Holy Cross order continue to serve at the university, and the university’s president — at present, Father John I. Jenkins — is always a Holy Cross priest. [Sooo… in solidarity, does the whole order share the blame?]
Loading ...
An ill designed attempt at whitewashing the seriousness of Jenkin’s mistake. [Don’t you rather think he is trying to make lemonade?] The admonition for BO to rethink his position on life issues should have come long ago and not as a half baked attempt to salvage something positive out of ND’s mistake. Were BO to change his position to pro-life then would be the time to invite him to speak and give him a degree. ND is being used and the head of the order is making excuses for him.
It’s really kind of a pathetic response. I guess ND should no longer be called “The Fighting Irish.” No decent Irish Catholic would take this
sitting down. Tom
You know, the drive-by media will still say “See..Rome isn’t clear on its teaching.
This fiasco is an embarasment to ND. It is pure pride that is keeping them from doing the right thing. Is there a Thomas Moore at ND? I guess we’ll find out!
In other words, “I can’t do anything about this. I’m just Father Jenkins’ religious superior. We gave up control of Notre Dame years ago. Can’t we all just get along? Okay, everybody, let’s all stand up and sing, ‘We are the world. We are the children…'”
This gives you a pretty good idea of where the CSC’s are heading as a religious order, right behind the De La Salle Christian Brothers, and the Jesuits, all of whom want to make that which is contrary to Church teachings palatable–all in the name of “tolerance.” They sold their souls in the Lake O’Lakes document, and nothing has been the same since.
What does the Book of Revelation tell us? “But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.” (Douay-Reims translation)
Had Father Cleary asked the President to rethink his positions while suggesting he NOT speak at Notre Dame, his credibility might have been saved.
asked [Obama] to rethink his positions
Is that what Frs. Cleary and Jenkins really, really want? I can tell them how to get Obama to re-think his position. Disinvite him.
I would appreciate a ND student asking Fr Jenkins who he voted for last November.
Do some really want Obama uninvited out of pure moral convictions, or because the thought of some kind of public embarrassment of him delights them?
The ND invitation has been given, and if they were to rescind the invitation, it would only harden the position of many on the left. That is, that the right is only willing to condemn rather than talk about this. The honorary law degree was probably ND\’s bigger mistake than an invitation to speak. I feel that the best method of persuading the persuadable (because those at the far extremes of the political spectrum are rarely persuadable) is a softer approach.
Frankly–I think the excerpts quoted sound like a noble effort. I’m glad there are voices out there like those of this priest. Obama is not likely to change his mind, but shifting attitudes and opinions take time. I have not read the entire letter, but one thing I would write (writing as a diplomat) would be to cease mis-labeling our views as “ideological” and “anti-science.”
The superior does not seem to recognize how lame and full of contradiction his words and the actions of his order are and it casts doubt on his intellectual and moral formation as well as that of the whole order of Holy Cross priests. He clearly does not care that the order has violated its obedience to the Bishops and to a vital moral doctrine expressed by Popes and saints through the ages. As a Notre Dame resident I have not been impressed with the order of the holy cross priests and now one wonders even more about their catholic character.
J.Haye
Softer approach?….the Church in the USA has been taking a softer approach for 40 years. Where has that gotten us? Harden the position of many on the left? Can’t get much harder than it is on an almost endless list of subjects. The Lord got to the point of having enough, showed his temper and his strength and threw the money changers out of the temple. Apparently you have never been in battle. This is a battle and there are a host of General George Patton quotes that could apply here. I have not even one tiny desire to soften on anything that relates to Church teaching. As the Pope has suggested, maybe the softees should leave the Church. What will be left is a cadre that can be depended on to do the right thing and for the right reasons. The softer we are the quicker the merchant of death and his cohorts will achieve their goal of destroying the Church. To avoid that outcome is worth dying for and good soldiers (St. Michael pray for us) do not die “softly”!
“J.Haye
Softer approach?….the Church in the USA has been taking a softer approach for 40 years. Where has that gotten us? Harden the position of many on the left? Can’t get much harder than it is on an almost endless list of subjects.”
Well, the bishops admittedly have had too soft of an approach. But the approach now is one where all of our headlines deal with clergy refusing communion to some “big fish” politicians (it happens every four years–the cries of communion desecration seem to cease once it isn’t a high-stakes election). Now–we have people demanding those who voted for Obama be warned to stay away from communion. More moderate pro-lifers (ie. Cafardi and FUS) are pushed off Boards of Directors because they vote for a candidate “in spite” of his views on abortion.
However, the pro-life movement, while “soft” in some areas, has become purist in a way that defies the harsh political realities. That is exemplified on this blog. Witness the demands that we punish Rick Santorum for supporting Specter, even though Specter (in spite of his views on Roe) did a better job as chairman of the judiciary committee than Hatch ever did (and Specter voted for Alito and Roberts–that’s where it counts!!!!).
I’ll grant you–elements of the hard left will never be with us. But there is a middle opinion in this country that can be tugged either way. They won’t be tugged our way as long as we don’t go out of our way to walk over to them and talk. Inviting Obama to ND was a mistake, but some of the vitriol exhibited toward this priest (and the blanket assumptions made about his character)–well, I’d call them silly if they weren’t so destructive.
What a pathetic, abysmal example of a once faithful Order which has now willfully flushed itself into the cesspool of Obaal worship.
The collective wisdom of such spokesmen as this could serve as a replacement for syrup of ipecac.
Does anyone in his/her right mind think that Obama will rethink his position on the sacredness of human life in all its stages as a result of his being awarded an honorary doctorate by the University? Methinks not. Rather, I think he will use it as an example of how he is honored by Catholics in general and NDU in particular. What a terrible and abysmal example of fraternal correction by the Head of the Order! Egads, it’s worse than I thought.
“Does anyone in his/her right mind think that Obama will rethink his position on the sacredness of human life in all its stages as a result of his being awarded an honorary doctorate by the University? Methinks not.”
Probably not. But as I said, there is a large contingent of the population that is in the middle on the abortion issue. They don’t think about it all the time as we do. If one side has the artful skill of consolidating a gradual consensus on certain points, they can be brought over to that point of view. Believe it or not, our actions and temperamental disposition can influence them. If the hard left is seen as repressing religious freedom, they look like the extremists. But if we cry “wolf” at every turn, folks may just say “who really gives a hoot?” They’re all nuts anyway.
Check this out, Pathetic.
Our leadership should be ashamed
I would agree with Rancher that it was an attempt to whitewash a mistake — if I was convinced Father Hugh W. Cleary really thought it was a mistake.
I’m nowhere near convinced of that from this reaction.
When oh when are we Catholics going to treat abortion as the crime which it truly is???? If we treat it as a crime- murder, would we invite someone to a Catholic college who facilitates this practice worldwide?
This is a very lame attempt by Cleary to “wash his hands” of the hailing of the Marxist Messiah into Notre Dame. Some do not seem to understand that this is where the men and boys are separated; a Thomas More is needed, indeed. The Church is riddled with those trying to compromise and forge unholy alliances between what is Gods and the things of men, their faith in God is weak and their faith in men, the state, is strong. They use their positions to undermine the Church to serve the State: men holding a monopoly of force, aggression, the Sword. As the real Messiah said, “all those who take the sword will perish by it”.
With respect to the poll Al cites (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/03/30/gallup-poll-catholics-the-same-or-more-liberal-than-others-on-moral-issues.html):
I’ve been thinking for some time now that any evangelization effort by the Church must *begin* with the Church and all of her nominal members.
“Check this out, Pathetic.
Our leadership should be ashamed
Comment by Al”
The problem is that most Catholics don’t go to church. The poll shows that those who do, follow Church teachings for the most part.
Dr. Eric: The problem is that most Catholics don’t go to church. The poll shows that those who do, follow Church teachings for the most part.
I don’t buy that for a minute. Go to any novus ordo church and show me any more than 10 percent who aren’t contracepting and I’d be shocked.
DarkKnight – this is a good observation. I believe the government (Obama and his leftist regime) already has in mind a model for its concept of “church”: The Patriotic Church. In a certain sense it’s already here and has its seeds in what some call the AmChurch. People like Kmiec (to name but one) who equivocate on Truth are in the vanguard, whether they realize it or not. Principalities and Powers are the enemies. For Catholic institutions to do their bidding is shameful and odious.
Altabello said:
\”But as I said, there is a large contingent of the population that is in the middle on the abortion issue. They don’t think about it all the time as we do. If one side has the artful skill of consolidating a gradual consensus on certain points, they can be brought over to that point of view. Believe it or not, our actions and temperamental disposition can influence them. If the hard left is seen as repressing religious freedom, they look like the extremists. But if we cry “wolf” at every turn, folks may just say “who really gives a hoot?” They’re all nuts anyway.\”
There comes a point when right is right and wrong is wrong. Being a \”purist\” is what some folks consider having principles…no matter that they do not conform to the world. Does it matter that most of the world views the Truth as \”nuts\”?? Most of the world always has. Rather than to manipulate consensus to gradually achieve majority and force the Truth on folks via state force (living by the sword), TEACH them! Show them by example the meaning of the Body of Christ, not living under rule of men. Prayer and faith are what will change the world.
Kate–the problem with your comments is that you seek to oversimplify evangelization. On one side are those who are with the truth. On the other are those who are not. Teaching can often entail meeting people where they are at, not screaming “I have the truth! You’re wrong. So there!”
Believe it or not, there are those who do struggle with the issue of abortion and when life begins. It’s a genuine tension. I don’t think shouting in their face does anything to further your cause.
Perhaps Fr Z/other readers can clear this up?
Why is the university offering an honorary degree to the President at all? Back in 80s, Oxford Uni chose not to give a degree to the PM of the time (Thatcher) in protest against her actions concerning higher education in the UK. Oxford has led the way here and ND could do similarly – perhaps only invite him to talk but no degree? These types of traditions are not mandatory and IMHO should be severely circumscribed anyway.
Apparently NO one has jurisdiction. Not the chief bishop, not the local ordinary, not the provicial of the Holy Cross fathers or the superior. I guess Fr. Jenkins is a free agent and can do whatever he wishes with impunity.
But maybe some good will come out of this somehow? Notre Dame stripped of its ‘catholic’ designation? This cannot pass by with a shrug.
State by state and even on the national level, the culture of death is increasing its grip. We will all be affected. And with the Catholic church divided and only a handful of bishops speaking out, the rest of us are going to know some consequences. Dead bodies float downstream. The faithful ones must be countercultural and swim against the tide of the culture of death. They cannot expect much support. The sign of contradiction is always in the form of a cross.
What is this letter really about except a head of the order, which founded ND and still has intimate ties with the university, trying to save face. Pathetic!
I don’t think Kate is oversimplifying at all. She has a very valid point. Morality is cut and dried. Politics is a whole different game. Applying political tactics to morality doesn’t work. As Kate says right is right and wrong is wrong. BO is attempting to muddle morality by exercising all of his political persuasiveness and that is precisely how he got elected and precisely how he is, thus far, able to move forward at breakneck speed. Someone (those of us who know right is right) has to stand firm and not play the political game. Standing firm in opposition to immorality is ultimately the best teaching tool and best persuader there is.
Wow. This is a pretty clever move, IMO. It won’t satisfy everyone, but it is certainly more defensible than the poppycock put forward by the ND prez about “not honoring him for his stances on life.”
This approach puts the ball in Obama’s court. Sadly (and I mean that), I somehow don’t see him being moved by this appeal.
But from my perspective, this is trying to make the best of a bad situation without causing (more) loss of face that will result if either side withdraws (i.e., the uni withdraws or the Pres. withdraws, which would be the more honorable thing for him to do, IMO).
While the order can’t make ND pull the invitation, it can pull Fr. Jenkins out of his job, since his actions have brought scandal upon the order.
RC, I believe the order still has the right to appoint the president of ND although they no longer control the Board. Tom
While I think the invitation should never have been issued and should be rescinded now, I am very glad that Fr. Cleary has written a letter that appears to be thirteen pages of absolute clarity. If the abridged version to be published is also clear, it should go a long way towards mitigating the scandal of having Obama at Notre Dame. Also, I expect this will be a “teaching occasion” for Fr. Jenkins. I’m continuing to ask my friends to sign the petition. Some of them are Holy Cross priests, and they have signed.
Fr. Cleary doesn’t get it. Abortion, infanticide, embryonic stem cell research,
Fr. Cleary doesn’t get it. Abortion, infanticide, embryonic stem cell research, FOCA are to Barack what the Holy Trinity, The Incarnation and the Immaculate Heart of Mary are to Fr. Cleary. In each case, its called religion. And this won’t change. Unless Barack is St. Paul.
Altabelo said:
“Kate—the problem with your comments is that you seek to oversimplify evangelization. On one side are those who are with the truth. On the other are those who are not. Teaching can often entail meeting people where they are at, not screaming “I have the truth! You’re wrong. So there!”
And throughout history we have seen the Truth “redefined” by “meeting people where they are at”. Sorry, Don. We know what Truth is, those with eyes to see and ears to hear are hungry for it. “Meeting people where they are at” simply is not giving them Truth. What you are advocating is participation in the dialectic, meeting “thesis” with “anti-thesis” and arriving at a new “synthesis”, only to begin the whole debate anew….but a little further away from what is real and True with a new “agreed upon” “thesis”. Truth is not cloudy, not arrived at through consensus or confusing. It IS frequently uncomfortable and unpopular
“Believe it or not, there are those who do struggle with the issue of abortion and when life begins. It’s a genuine tension. I don’t think shouting in their face does anything to further your cause.”
Please reread my post, nowhere do I advocate shouting in anyones face. Living by example, praying and having faith in God are the very opposite of that. There is no need to have tension over the abortion issue, we KNOW what is righteous. Catholics and Catholic leaders fawning over Abortion advocate Obama and other Marxists (worshippers of the state, those who believe “we” can have a human created heaven on earth….Utopia) is what clouds the issue and encourages further straying from Truth, encourages idolatry.
Altabelo sets up a straw man. In any battle, and we are in a battle against the evil one, there are different tactics for different tactical conditions. Standing outside an abortion clinic and telling a 17 year old rape victim that they are contemplating murder at the top of your lungs is not a tactic likely to garner a victory for life. Standing up to a 40 year supporter of Planned Parenthood and calling them a supporter of murder isn’t the same thing. Pointing to the 40 year supporter of Planned Parenthood and stating that they support murder and that Planned Parenthood’s founder supported eugenics is a principled stand that is likely to eventually prevail.
Let us not forget that while the Truth is the Truth one of the goals of the Prince of Lies is to try the redefine the Truth in people’s minds. So far in the U.S. has has been pretty successful. A baby has become “a mistake” or “a lump of flesh, like a wart.” He is trying to move to “a commodity,” which is what is behind fetal stem cell research.
I think you overestimate the left. Most are already as hardened against Truth as it is possible to be. Some even hold us in disdain for our failure to be true to the teachings of Christ. They rightly point to our failings in upholding Catholic teaching and call us hypocrites.
I also think you underestimate the Church. If bishops and priests, especially priest were to stand up and diligently preach against abortion, contraception and support of political relativism many straying Catholics would change their ways. Could their be a political backlash? Of course, but the Church thrives in adversity and it is likely that try to suppress a faithful Church would get the left no farther than it has for the last 2000 years.
\”I think you overestimate the left. Most are already as hardened against Truth as it is possible to be.\”
I agree. But attempting to meet these people where they are in the mistaken belief that compromise can then be spun toward the Church is a huge mistake. It is playing by the enemies rules at a game they understand far better than most Christians who have been dumbed down and converted to state worship in the enemies \”schools\”. The problem is that God must open the eyes and ears. As a former \”hardened\” leftist I KNOW He does this. Our attempts at evangelization come to nothing without Gods help. Time to stop conniving and get down on our knees.
\”Some even hold us in disdain for our failure to be true to the teachings of Christ.They rightly point to our failings in upholding Catholic teaching and call us hypocrites.\”
Of course they do because we are! This simply shows how little they understand Christianity. The enemy has taught them that Christians are supposed to be perfect because they can choose to be so and are capable of being so because original sin does not exist. This is largely a matter of education, not compromising with folks who promote policies against God.
\”I also think you underestimate the Church. If bishops and priests, especially priest were to stand up and diligently preach against abortion, contraception and support of political relativism many straying Catholics would change their ways.\”
I agree. But I also believe that the Church has been infiltrated by nonbelievers and state worshippers who try to subvert as well as those who think that ends justify means, that good spiritual results can be forced by government. People don\’t want \”religion\” forced on them. But many who shout this fervently believe people should be stripped of property, forced to comply with the rules of THEIR particular faiths, like eco-worship, animal worship, sports-worship, utopiansm, etc.It is pretty much ALL religion, the problem is getting folks to discern and to realize that the evils that the Church taught would arise from embracing \”modernism\”, statism, sciencism, cults of personality, hedonism, nihilism, etc. are coming to pass.
\”Could their be a political backlash? Of course, but the Church thrives in adversity and it is likely that try to suppress a faithful Church would get the left no farther than it has for the last 2000 years.\”
It already has. The Church is in serious trouble. The many complaints of \”conservative\” Catholics against the USCCB is a case in point. The emphasis on \”the spirit of Vatican 2\” to shove the Church leftward, the honoring of a proponent of godless Marxism and abortion by a major Catholic University illustrates how bad things have gotten. The demonizing of the Church in the media, non-Catholics \”explaining\” Catholic doctrine to Catholics, endless movies and books portraying the Church as corrupt and occult. The Church is seriously at risk of becoming an irrelevant toady to the state-as-god, maybe already has in the U.S. I have had non-practicing Catholics, on hearing of my conversion to Catholicism, exclaim \”But what about the Da Vinci Code?!!\” This is terribly sad.They do not know their own faith and heritage, they have been deracinated by those who understand the great spiritual power of the Church and want to undermine it.
And it has all come through compromise, gradualism, consensus \”shaping\”, and \”dialogue\” to \”arrive at truth\”. The is social engineering, not truth.
\”And throughout history we have seen the Truth “redefined” by “meeting people where they are at”. Sorry, Don. We know what Truth is, those with eyes to see and ears to hear are hungry for it. “Meeting people where they are at” simply is not giving them Truth. What you are advocating is participation in the dialectic, meeting “thesis” with “anti-thesis” and arriving at a new “synthesis”, only to begin the whole debate anew….but a little further away from what is real and True with a new “agreed upon” “thesis”. Truth is not cloudy, not arrived at through consensus or confusing. It IS frequently uncomfortable and unpopular\”
I agree that many have hardened hearts as well as the fact that the truth is unpopular. The fact is, however, that people do have differing opinions. You just saying you are right and that\’s the end of it isn\’t going to change things. There are situations and people who should not be dialogued with. In fact, I am of the opinion that Obama should not have been invited (I just take exception to the vitriol and degree of outrage resulting).
And who is setting up a strawman here–it\’s not me! I never said anything about dilluting one\’s view or redefining it. What I am saying is that there is an art to presenting oneself in a post-modern, post-Christian world. You don\’t need to redefine your views to do that, but you do need to be \”as wise as serpents, but as gentle as doves.\”
If you don\’t feel you can encounter others and listen to and see things from their point of view, perhaps you don\’t have much confidence that you have the truth as we are led to believe.
Agreed with Don Altabello: the members of Notre Dame could certainly rescue their institution’s claim to be Catholic, if they were to use the occasion to demonstrate their unambiguously support of their bishops and their rational, civilized and profoundly-held opposition to the inhumane causes espoused by the President. It is particularly incumbent upon a university to adopt rational, civilized measures and to avoid such demotic displays of emotionalism as may all to easily be used to discredit their cause.
“If you don’t feel you can encounter others and listen to and see things from their point of view, perhaps you don’t have much confidence that you have the truth as we are led to believe.”
Not to put to fine a point on it what exactly do you expect these “others” to say that isn’t the same propaganda that the culture of death has been trying to sell for the past 40 years. We aren’t talking about college students here, or young adolescence who have not yet formed their moral compass. These are people who already know our stance. They know why we take it and are either uninterested in the Truth or deny to an extent that only the direct intervention of God’s grace will change their mind.
For the record I’ve heard their points of view. One point of view rejects science, strangely enough something we are often accused of, because science shows that a pre-born is a unique member of the human race separate from its mother from the time of conception.
Another other point of view, which is even more evil, admits the baby is human but calls that fact irrelevant. In this world view and convenience of the mother is more important, and allows the baby to be killed at will. The stand which embraces the sliding standard to the value of a human life.
These people have nothing new to tell us, and in truth we have nothing new to tell them. They already know our beliefs and the foundation of those beliefs and have rejected them.
President Obama claims to belong to the Church of Christ. I don’t know how the CoC is in Illinois, but down here they are about as anti-Catholic as they come. If Obama is actually a practicing member of the CoC (whatever that means), he has already rejected the truth of the Catholic Church. In his understanding, we are all going to hell, we worship idols, we are not Christian, etc. He may well see his speech, in his heart of hearts, as an opportunity to evangelize the damned.
So I am not too hopeful about this idea, Father, although I certainly enjoy the deliciousness of it.
However … since the Church of Christ is a solidly Sola Scriptura outfit (one of the reasons they hold the Catholic Church in such low regard), IF one could get the President to listen to and understand the reasons in Scripture why abortion and homosexual acts are evil and wrong, and the reason in Scripture why saying “I’m personally against it but I can’t deny others their right to kill their babies” is hypocritical and deeply sinful, and IF the President actually does care about the consequences of not doing what God commands and what Jesus teaches, one just MIGHT get the President to change his own behavior.
How about it? No, I’m not holding my breath either.
At the Pro-Life Dinner Saturday in Dallas, the keynote (a young woman who survived her mother’s attempt to abort her) said that what we really need to pray for is that President Obama be given the Fear of God.
Corrections (typing faster than I think):
Should have said, ” why saying ‘I’m personally against it but I can’t deny others their right to kill their babies or to marry someone of their own gender’ ”
Last sentence should have said “(a young woman who survived being aborted by her mother at 7-1/2 months via saline injection)”
Deep embarrassment.
I posted my comments under the wrong item.
Ow.
I am going to close the combox for a little while to provide an opportunity to think about what is really going on in this entry.