I MEAN THIS. THIS IS NOT THE LEAST BIT RHETORICAL.

Those who know me know that I disagree strongly with Obama's position on abortion, characterized by the right wing media as infanticide. I suppose that the characterization is accurate, because his votes in the Illinois Senate were on bills allowing a doctor to kill a child that was somehow born alive during an abortion. But if it is your opinion that you can end the life of a fetus, whether you do it inside or outside the womb is simply a matter of location and convenience. As I said I disagree with this, but I admire (and I'm serious about this) his consistency. First, he's putting the life of the woman ahead of the life of the child. Second, he's putting the safety of the woman ahead of the child. Accidents happen in all kinds of surgeries, this is no exception, and if it is safer to deliver the child, then kill it, then that is what (in his opinion) should be done. Ok. Third, a child is not likely to be born spontaneously before the process begins, but during. This means that the child may be missing limbs, brain matter, etc., so in a way, one could view the 'completion' of the abortion once the child is born as a mercy.

This brings me to Notre Dame's inviting the President of the United States to give a commencement speech. Catholics are outraged, because Obama's views (cited above) are anathema (Pun Intended--and no, this is not an XKCD reference) to the Catholic Church. Like Obama, they (those that run the university) have a hierarchy of belief. And, just as Obama believes that the woman's life/comfort/convenience is more important that the life of the child, Notre Dame values tradition and prestige over the politics surrounding the right to life movement. Is it a good decision? I disagree with it, but it's certainly not as bad the selling of indulgences, or the crusades, or...

In other words, there's a lot to be angry about. Is this where we should be wasting our vitriol?