PDA

View Full Version : Obama 300,000 abortions. Sick.


HonestChieffan
02-07-2012, 09:49 PM
Planned Parenthood's Hostages
The abortion provider uses a vast media and political network to maintain its subsidies from government and private charities.


By ROBERT P. GEORGE AND O. CARTER SNEAD

The Susan G. Komen Foundation, an organization dedicated since 1982 to fighting, and one day curing, breast cancer, decided to extricate itself from the culture wars by discontinuing grants to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest provider of abortions. The grants Komen had been making amounted to $650,000 last year, funding some 19 local Planned Parenthood programs that offered manual breast exams but only referrals for mammograms performed elsewhere.

The reality is that Planned Parenthood—with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion—does little in the way of screening for breast cancer. But the organization is very much in the business of selling abortions—more than 300,000 in 2010, according to Planned Parenthood. At an average cost of $500, according to various sources including Planned Parenthood's website, that translates to about $164 million of revenue per year.

So how did Planned Parenthood and its loyal allies in politics and the media react to Komen's efforts to be neutral in the controversy over abortion?

Faced with even the tiniest depletion in the massive river of funds Planned Parenthood receives yearly, the behemoth mobilized its enormous cultural, media, financial and political apparatus to attack the Komen Foundation in the press, on TV and through social media.

The organization's allies demonized the charity, attempting to depict the nation's most prominent anti-breast cancer organization as a bedfellow of religious extremists. A Facebook page was set up to "Defund the Komen Foundation." In short, Planned Parenthood took breast-cancer victims as hostages.


Komen's leaders had good reason to believe their organization could disintegrate under Planned Parenthood's assault. On Friday the charity issued a statement "apologizing to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives." The statement assured Planned Parenthood's supporters that, like any other organization, it is eligible to apply for grants in the future.

Among Komen's reasons for discontinuing grants to Planned Parenthood was its policy of avoiding entanglements with entities under government investigation. Planned Parenthood has been and is under congressional and criminal investigation (by attorneys general, local prosecutors and various regulatory agencies in Arizona, Indiana, Alabama, Kansas and Texas) for allegations including failure to report criminal child sex abuse, misuse of health-care and family-planning funds, and failure to comply with parental-involvement laws regarding abortions.

Planned Parenthood is very far from the uncontroversial organization the Susan G. Komen Foundation aspires to be. According to its most recent annual report, for 2010, Planned Parenthood sells abortions to nine out of every 10 pregnant women who come to its clinics. And it's known throughout the country as an implacable and aggressive opponent of any meaningful restrictions on deliberate feticide.

Planned Parenthood has spent millions fighting even those legislative initiatives that command extremely wide public support, such as laws requiring parental notification and informed consent for abortions, and those banning late-term abortions when the child developing in the womb is fully viable. Planned Parenthood even opposes a bill recently introduced in Congress to ban abortions for the purpose of sex selection.

It is easy to see why Komen might not wish to be associated with Planned Parenthood. Fighting breast cancer is something all Americans can and do agree on; promoting and performing abortions is something that divides us bitterly.

While Planned Parenthood's target in the Komen case was new, its tactics are not. In the past two years, we have seen the abortion giant (and the politicians it funds) hold for ransom a diverse array of hostages.

In 2010, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress risked and narrowly averted the rejection of their signature health-care law in order to block the inclusion of provisions (such as the 1970s Hyde Amendment) that prevent federal abortion funding. At the 11th hour, a handful of "pro-life" Democrats capitulated, giving Mr. Obama and Planned Parenthood their victory.

Last year, in April, Mr. Obama risked a government shutdown over language in a resolution that would have defunded Planned Parenthood at the federal level. At the last moment, congressional Republicans gave way and allowed the federal money to keep flowing.

Also in 2011, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services threatened to withhold billions of dollars in Medicaid funds from those states such as Indiana that prohibit state funding of Planned Parenthood and other entities that provide elective abortions. Planned Parenthood strongly opposed Indiana's attempt to cut off its funding and celebrated the federal government's intervention. Indiana is currently litigating the matter in federal court.

Most recently, after intense lobbying, the Department of Health and Human Services did the bidding of Planned Parenthood by imposing a mandate on virtually all employers to provide insurance coverage (without cost-sharing) for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilizations and contraceptives. This threatens to force many religiously affiliated charitable institutions out of the business of providing education, health care and social services to the poor.

Breast-cancer victims are only the latest hostages taken by Planned Parenthood. Unless the organization is finally held to account, they will surely not be the last.

Mr. George is professor of jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program at Princeton University. Mr. Snead is professor of law and was recently appointed director of the Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204369404577206692451108960.html

Amnorix
02-08-2012, 05:59 AM
:rolleyes:

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 06:04 AM
I don't understand why Planned Parenthood gives a shit...they get tons of money elsewhere...why demonize the Komen Foundation?

Amnorix
02-08-2012, 06:06 AM
I don't understand why Planned Parenthood gives a shit...they get tons of money elsewhere...why demonize the Komen Foundation?


You're taking at face value every word from the Director of Ethics and Culture at the [Catholic, obviously] University of Notre Dame. I'm sure he has put his own particular spin on events, as well as a deep and abiding hatred of Planned Parenthood, and that others would have a very different story.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 06:09 AM
You're taking at face value every word from the Director of Ethics and Culture at the [Catholic, obviously] University of Notre Dame. I'm sure he has put his own particular spin on events, as well as a deep and abiding hatred of Planned Parenthood, and that others would have a very different story.

So...which parts of the article are wrong?

Amnorix
02-08-2012, 06:11 AM
A different story from the LA Times, explains that a pro-life Christian decided to cut the funding, which resulted in Planned Parenthood supporters being up in arms.

One thing to realize here is that, while I'm sure Planned Parenthood applauded the attacks on teh Komen Foundation -- these types of charities can involve the same people, or people who travel in the same circles, and have TREMENDOUS influence. If some of those people got pissed off at the Komen people, then there's going to be fallout for them regardless of what Planned Parenthood itself does or doesn't do.

And, it seems, based on the article, that the Komen Foundation doesn't hesitate to throw its clout around either. No small, weak little abused foundation is it.

Anyway, the article.


http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-komen-foundation-20120208,0,6040809.story

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation took another step toward rehabilitating its standing in the breast cancer community with the resignation of the executive at the center of the Planned Parenthood funding controversy.

In a largely conciliatory letter, Karen Handel, senior vice president for public policy, said Tuesday that she would step down immediately so the organization could "refocus its attention and energies on its mission."

"I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it," Handel wrote, adding that she declined Komen's offer of a severance package. Handel is a self-described pro-life Christian who became the main target of Planned Parenthood supporters as the funding dispute unfolded last week.

The injection of abortion politics into the mission of fighting breast cancer has prompted thousands of Komen supporters to reevaluate the nonprofit group that encouraged them to wear pink ribbons, participate in 5K fundraising races and buy products from companies that pledged to donate some of the proceeds to the charity.

Many of them now say they are uncomfortable with the size of the foundation's executive salaries, lawsuits against smaller nonprofit groups, partnerships with companies whose products may increase breast cancer risk and lack of investment in research to prevent and treat the disease.

"The Planned Parenthood controversy is just the culmination of things that have been happening for a while," said Samantha King, a professor in the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies at Queen's University in Kingston, Canada, and author of the book "Pink Ribbons, Inc."
Komen officials did not respond to requests to discuss the matter Tuesday.

Among nonprofit organizations, the Komen foundation has long inspired admiration and a little envy, said Daniel Borochoff, president of Chicago-based CharityWatch. Other groups are "probably jealous of their success," which may come at the expense of other cancer charities' fundraising, he said.

But the Dallas-based organization has also become known for antagonizing smaller nonprofit groups, Borochoff said. As many as 80 charities have received letters from Komen attorneys over the years asking them to refrain from using the Komen-trademarked pink ribbon or the catchphrase "for the cure."

When Uniting Against Lung Cancer organized a 2010 event in which people flew kites to remember loved ones who died of the disease, it got a cease-and-desist letter from Komen because it called the event "Kites for the Cure." The New York-based charity spent more than a year tussling with Komen lawyers before resolving the issue with the right to use the name.

"It was a very big disappointment to our organization ... that we had to be distracted and spend resources on a legal action from another advocacy organization," said Executive Director Linda Wenger.

Michael N. Mercanti, managing partner for the New York law firm Lucas & Mercanti, said his firm provided free legal services to a small charity in Minnesota that organized dog sled races to raise money for breast cancer research. Aided by the big-city lawyers, "Mush for a Cure" beat back Komen's challenge.

"They shouldn't be spending money on lawyers when people give their donations to find cures for breast cancer," Mercanti said.

Groups focused on women's health have also taken issue with some of Komen's corporate partnerships.

In 2010, Komen teamed up with KFC in a promotion called "Buckets for the Cure," which raised $4.2 million for the charity through sales of pink buckets of chicken. Critics questioned the wisdom of partnering with a fast-food company known for serving fried, high-calorie food; obesity and a high-fat diet have both been linked to an increased breast cancer risk.

Komen's corporate ties prompted Breast Cancer Action, a San Francisco-based advocacy group, to launch its "Think Before You Pink" campaign 11 years ago, aimed at alerting consumers to products with pink ribbons that could raise their breast cancer risk.

"What we kind of see is an ever-increasing desire to build the money in their coffers, and then Komen starting to justify those partnerships," said Patricia Bellasalma, president of California NOW, the state chapter of the National Organization for Women.

Critics also worry that those partnerships discourage Komen from funding research on whether industrial pollutants cause breast cancer, Bellasalma said.

However, Komen paid almost $1 million to sponsor an independent review of the scientific evidence on environmental causes of breast cancer, which was released by the Institute of Medicine in December. The report said that evidence was lacking to establish clear-cut risks but that more research was needed.

Pioli Zombie
02-08-2012, 06:26 AM
What's the difference between a fetus and an unborn child? The parent wants it. Sick world.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 06:31 AM
But the Dallas-based organization has also become known for antagonizing smaller nonprofit groups, Borochoff said. As many as 80 charities have received letters from Komen attorneys over the years asking them to refrain from using the Komen-trademarked pink ribbon or the catchphrase "for the cure."

If this is an example of the "tyranny of the Komen foundation" then I'd say that's a lame argument. Simply asking other smaller charities not to use your symbol or your slogan would hardly be something I'd consider heavy handed. On the other hand, the fact that a pro-life Christian is running the charity sort of means that the charity endorsed her point of view on the matter...else she wouldn't be in charge of it. The charity is perfectly within their rights to do so. The protest and the whaling and gnashing of teeth came from PP and it's supporters. All because one of their grantors (for whatever reason) decided not to give them grants...and frankly they don't NEED the money. They need the publicity. They need to look good, and getting money from the Komen Foundation, a well thought of charity that puts women's health first and foremost, makes PP look good. Transversely, if that charity pulls it's money, then it makes PP, (which is PRIMARILY an abortion provider, not a cancer screen-er or anything else that has to do with women's health) look very bad.

They got their taints bruised and they don't like it.

MagicHef
02-08-2012, 06:35 AM
A different story from the LA Times, explains that a pro-life Christian decided to cut the funding, which resulted in Planned Parenthood supporters being up in arms.

One thing to realize here is that, while I'm sure Planned Parenthood applauded the attacks on teh Komen Foundation -- these types of charities can involve the same people, or people who travel in the same circles, and have TREMENDOUS influence. If some of those people got pissed off at the Komen people, then there's going to be fallout for them regardless of what Planned Parenthood itself does or doesn't do.

And, it seems, based on the article, that the Komen Foundation doesn't hesitate to throw its clout around either. No small, weak little abused foundation is it.

Anyway, the article.


http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-komen-foundation-20120208,0,6040809.story

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation took another step toward rehabilitating its standing in the breast cancer community with the resignation of the executive at the center of the Planned Parenthood funding controversy.

In a largely conciliatory letter, Karen Handel, senior vice president for public policy, said Tuesday that she would step down immediately so the organization could "refocus its attention and energies on its mission."

"I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it," Handel wrote, adding that she declined Komen's offer of a severance package. Handel is a self-described pro-life Christian who became the main target of Planned Parenthood supporters as the funding dispute unfolded last week.

The injection of abortion politics into the mission of fighting breast cancer has prompted thousands of Komen supporters to reevaluate the nonprofit group that encouraged them to wear pink ribbons, participate in 5K fundraising races and buy products from companies that pledged to donate some of the proceeds to the charity.

Many of them now say they are uncomfortable with the size of the foundation's executive salaries, lawsuits against smaller nonprofit groups, partnerships with companies whose products may increase breast cancer risk and lack of investment in research to prevent and treat the disease.

"The Planned Parenthood controversy is just the culmination of things that have been happening for a while," said Samantha King, a professor in the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies at Queen's University in Kingston, Canada, and author of the book "Pink Ribbons, Inc."
Komen officials did not respond to requests to discuss the matter Tuesday.

Among nonprofit organizations, the Komen foundation has long inspired admiration and a little envy, said Daniel Borochoff, president of Chicago-based CharityWatch. Other groups are "probably jealous of their success," which may come at the expense of other cancer charities' fundraising, he said.

But the Dallas-based organization has also become known for antagonizing smaller nonprofit groups, Borochoff said. As many as 80 charities have received letters from Komen attorneys over the years asking them to refrain from using the Komen-trademarked pink ribbon or the catchphrase "for the cure."

When Uniting Against Lung Cancer organized a 2010 event in which people flew kites to remember loved ones who died of the disease, it got a cease-and-desist letter from Komen because it called the event "Kites for the Cure." The New York-based charity spent more than a year tussling with Komen lawyers before resolving the issue with the right to use the name.

"It was a very big disappointment to our organization ... that we had to be distracted and spend resources on a legal action from another advocacy organization," said Executive Director Linda Wenger.

Michael N. Mercanti, managing partner for the New York law firm Lucas & Mercanti, said his firm provided free legal services to a small charity in Minnesota that organized dog sled races to raise money for breast cancer research. Aided by the big-city lawyers, "Mush for a Cure" beat back Komen's challenge.

"They shouldn't be spending money on lawyers when people give their donations to find cures for breast cancer," Mercanti said.

Groups focused on women's health have also taken issue with some of Komen's corporate partnerships.

In 2010, Komen teamed up with KFC in a promotion called "Buckets for the Cure," which raised $4.2 million for the charity through sales of pink buckets of chicken. Critics questioned the wisdom of partnering with a fast-food company known for serving fried, high-calorie food; obesity and a high-fat diet have both been linked to an increased breast cancer risk.

Komen's corporate ties prompted Breast Cancer Action, a San Francisco-based advocacy group, to launch its "Think Before You Pink" campaign 11 years ago, aimed at alerting consumers to products with pink ribbons that could raise their breast cancer risk.

"What we kind of see is an ever-increasing desire to build the money in their coffers, and then Komen starting to justify those partnerships," said Patricia Bellasalma, president of California NOW, the state chapter of the National Organization for Women.

Critics also worry that those partnerships discourage Komen from funding research on whether industrial pollutants cause breast cancer, Bellasalma said.

However, Komen paid almost $1 million to sponsor an independent review of the scientific evidence on environmental causes of breast cancer, which was released by the Institute of Medicine in December. The report said that evidence was lacking to establish clear-cut risks but that more research was needed.

So... that article is about 20% about the actual topic at hand, and 80% why Komen is the scum of the earth? Were you really just the person warning not to take a person's words at face value because of their likely beliefs?

Also, please explain why the former director of Komen's beliefs have so much to do with justifying the actions of Planned Parenthood.

Amnorix
02-08-2012, 06:37 AM
If this is an example of the "tyranny of the Komen foundation" then I'd say that's a lame argument. Simply asking other smaller charities not to use your symbol or your slogan would hardly be something I'd consider heavy handed. On the other hand, the fact that a pro-life Christian is running the charity sort of means that the charity endorsed her point of view on the matter...else she wouldn't be in charge of it. The charity is perfectly within their rights to do so. The protest and the whaling and gnashing of teeth came from PP and it's supporters. All because one of their grantors (for whatever reason) decided not to give them grants...and frankly they don't NEED the money. They need the publicity. They need to look good, and getting money from the Komen Foundation, a well thought of charity that puts women's health first and foremost, makes PP look good. Transversely, if that charity pulls it's money, then it makes PP, (which is PRIMARILY an abortion provider, not a cancer screen-er or anything else that has to do with women's health) look very bad.

They got their taints bruised and they don't like it.


The Komen Foundation can do what it wants, including changing policy if the fallout from its decision is adverse.

Similarly, PP can do what it wants, including criticizing another charity. No laws have been broken here. Sounds like the bruised taint is ultimately the woman at Komen who got fired. When you play with the big boys (or big girls, in this case), you know that's a risk. Charitable work IS being politically sensitive -- not national politics, but sensitive to the needs and desires of your sponsors, etc. Looks like Komen failed at that this time around. Seemingly its used to being the big girl and calling the shots but decided to annoy someone bigger than it.

Amnorix
02-08-2012, 06:41 AM
So... that article is about 20% about the actual topic at hand, and 80% why Komen is the scum of the earth? Were you really just the person warning not to take a person's words at face value because of their likely beliefs?


What I know about breast cancer, the Komen Foundation (which I never heard of before today) etc. can be fit into a thimble. Don't know or care. I just know that when I see an article criticizing PP from a senior policy guy at a Catholic institution, there's PROBABLY a bit of spin going on there.

And I dont' take the LA Times article at face value. All I know is that there's multiple sides to this story and I have no idea which one is more accurate. Truth is in the eye of the beholder on this one, most likely.

Also, please explain why the former director of Komen's beliefs have so much to do with justifying the actions of Planned Parenthood.


The Komen Foundation can withdraw funding if it wants. PP can criticize it, and note the political/religious beliefs of one of its senior executives if it wants. Komen can reverse policy if it wants.

Alot of butthurt here over a non-story, IMHO. I'm not particularly excited by the infighting between massive charities, to be honest.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 07:02 AM
I'd say the PP reaction was slightly more than just criticism. Maybe it's just their "supporters" but having people picket and protest and start facebook pages and basically do everything you can to smear the name of the charity is more than just some written statement of criticism.

Of course, they can always say it's not them, it's their supporters like NOW etc.

blaise
02-08-2012, 07:02 AM
I was thinking about this yesterday- a lot of the schools where I live in North Dallas have dances, runs, walks, etc to raise money for the Komen people. I bet a lot didn't know they were affiliated with PP at all before this happened. I wonder if people are going to ask the school district to stop the affiliation.

Dave Lane
02-08-2012, 07:05 AM
Not sure why anyone gives a shit.

Amnorix
02-08-2012, 07:08 AM
I'd say the PP reaction was slightly more than just criticism. Maybe it's just their "supporters" but having people picket and protest and start facebook pages and basically do everything you can to smear the name of the charity is more than just some written statement of criticism.

Of course, they can always say it's not them, it's their supporters like NOW etc.


:shrug: Sure, they organized. That's what a charity can do.

Meanwhile, the woman that quit was apparently a former Republican candidate for governor of Georgia, and had spoken out publicly against Planned Parenthood before.

So it's hard to credit these comments by the article in the OP, when it seems that the impetus behind the shift was a very specific position IN the "culture wars" over abortion.

The Susan G. Komen Foundation, an organization dedicated since 1982 to fighting, and one day curing, breast cancer, decided to extricate itself from the culture wars by discontinuing grants to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest provider of abortions. The grants Komen had been making amounted to $650,000 last year, funding some 19 local Planned Parenthood programs that offered manual breast exams but only referrals for mammograms performed elsewhere.

So how did Planned Parenthood and its loyal allies in politics and the media react to Komen's efforts to be neutral in the controversy over abortion?

Amnorix
02-08-2012, 07:08 AM
Not sure why anyone gives a shit.


Because in a war like this, every little victory or defeat gets magnified x1000

blaise
02-08-2012, 07:10 AM
Nobody did give one until they pulled the money from PP and then it seemed to dominate the news, and be all over twitter, for about 48 hours.

La literatura
02-08-2012, 07:12 AM
I appreciated the article, although it does leave me wondering what the profit of abortion is for Planned Parenthood. It mentions the revenue, but it does cost money to pay for doctors, nurses, secretaries, equipment, etc.

dirk digler
02-08-2012, 07:14 AM
Nobody did give one until they pulled the money from PP and then it seemed to dominate the news, and be all over twitter, for about 48 hours.

I know and I was watching all this and I could barely give a fuck. Who cares? The Komen Foundation can give money to whoever they want and the last time I checked abortion is still legal.

blaise
02-08-2012, 07:18 AM
I know and I was watching all this and I could barely give a ****. Who cares? The Komen Foundation can give money to whoever they want and the last time I checked abortion is still legal.

I agree they can give to whoever they want. The outrage seemed to come from them pulling money from PP, not because they gave it to them in the first place. Nobody ever heard a peep about this until the funds were pulled. It was the pro-choice crowd that made the most noise about it.

dirk digler
02-08-2012, 07:29 AM
I agree they can give to whoever they want. The outrage seemed to come from them pulling money from PP, not because they gave it to them in the first place. Nobody ever heard a peep about this until the funds were pulled. It was the pro-choice crowd that made the most noise about it.

Yeah I really don't understand why they would get upset considering how little the money is in the grand scheme of things. There is no doubt though this was about abortion since the VP who is anti-abortion and was the person pushing this resigned in disgrace yesterday.

blaise
02-08-2012, 07:32 AM
Yeah I really don't understand why they would get upset considering how little the money is in the grand scheme of things. There is no doubt though this was about abortion since the VP who is anti-abortion and was the person pushing this resigned in disgrace yesterday.

Yeah, that's kind of odd to me. As if she made this decision on her own and there wasn't discussion. Now they're scapegoating her, it seems.

Brock
02-08-2012, 08:42 AM
And damn those contraceptives too! /religious nuts

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 08:51 AM
And damn those contraceptives too! /religious nuts

Everyone should just kill all their babies /anti religious nuts

See, I can do it too...

Brock
02-08-2012, 08:52 AM
Everyone should just kill all their babies /anti religious nuts

See, I can do it too...

Yeah, because those two things are equivalent! /tards

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 08:55 AM
Yeah, because those two things are equivalent! /tards

Just illustrating the extremes.

Brock
02-08-2012, 08:59 AM
Just illustrating the extremes.

So the Catholic Church holds an extreme viewpoint? Well, thanks for admitting it.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 09:10 AM
So the Catholic Church holds an extreme viewpoint? Well, thanks for admitting it.

Dude. Please. You were being extreme so I was being extreme. I'm Catholic, so I don't believe the Church holds an extreme viewpoint. I'd be willing to bet that you either don't know or don't care what the Church actually teaches and why, so I'm probably wasting my time here.

It's a little smarter that simply "Damn those contraceptives too".

jjjayb
02-08-2012, 09:41 AM
An organization that is created to save lives decided to stop funding another organization whos' main business is taking lives. I still don't see what the problem was. I'm dissappointed they recinded their decision.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 09:45 AM
An organization that is created to save lives decided to stop funding another organization whos' main business is taking lives. I still don't see what the problem was. I'm dissappointed they recinded their decision.

I agree here. I wish they'd have stuck to their guns.

Cave Johnson
02-08-2012, 09:51 AM
An organization that is created to save lives decided to stop funding another organization whos' main business is taking lives. I still don't see what the problem was. I'm dissappointed they recinded their decision.

So more than 50% of PP's business is abortions?

Brock
02-08-2012, 09:54 AM
Dude. Please. You were being extreme so I was being extreme. I'm Catholic, so I don't believe the Church holds an extreme viewpoint. I'd be willing to bet that you either don't know or don't care what the Church actually teaches and why, so I'm probably wasting my time here.

It's a little smarter that simply "Damn those contraceptives too".

Telling people contraceptives are bad is not only extreme, it's extremely retarded.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 09:55 AM
Telling people contraceptives are bad is not only extreme, it's extremely retarded.

OK, thanks for your opinion.

HonestChieffan
02-08-2012, 10:01 AM
http://www.stopp.org/pdfs/Analysis_of_PPFA_2010_Annual_Report.pdf

Interesting look into the numbers

Brock
02-08-2012, 10:04 AM
OK, thanks for your opinion.

Yeah, thanks for not having a point.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 10:07 AM
Yeah, thanks for not having a point.

:shake:I have a point.

You simply will not listen to it. You'd rather say people are retarded for not believing what you believe. So, you have your opinion, and I don't feel like explaining to you why the Church's teaching on contraception is actually rather logical and sensible, because it takes a lot to flesh it out and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't care anyway.

Brock
02-08-2012, 10:20 AM
:shake:I have a point.

You simply will not listen to it. You'd rather say people are retarded for not believing what you believe. So, you have your opinion, and I don't feel like explaining to you why the Church's teaching on contraception is actually rather logical and sensible, because it takes a lot to flesh it out and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't care anyway.

You don't have a point. There is not logic to forbidding contraception, none, zero. It is a destructive and foolish viewpoint, and it fits right in with the viewpoints they've held in the past, such as when they were intimidating scientists into denying factual discoveries.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 10:30 AM
You don't have a point. There is not logic to forbidding contraception, none, zero. It is a destructive and foolish viewpoint, and it fits right in with the viewpoints they've held in the past, such as when they were intimidating scientists into denying factual discoveries.

There is indeed logic in stating that contraception is wrong, if you take the time to learn it. You will not do so, you'd rather simply write it off as foolish and throw around generalities about how the Church is anti-science now, when many of the advances man has made in Science happened through the Church.

Google it if you don't believe me. OR simply sit in your ignorant viewpoint about the Church and it's teachings. your call, and again, I don't think anything I say will change your mind.

Gonzo
02-08-2012, 10:33 AM
You don't have a point. There is not logic to forbidding contraception, none, zero. It is a destructive and foolish viewpoint, and it fits right in with the viewpoints they've held in the past, such as when they were intimidating scientists into denying factual discoveries.



I'm not an anti-religious super nut by any stretch. I believe that if it helps you get through your day, then good for you. I've never been to church a day in my life and I never plan on it.
However, with the surplus population issues we currently are faced with, the Catholic Church needs to review they're policies and procedures a bit. You should only screw to procreate? Never whack off? Don't pull out?

Dude, time for a fucking update maybe?

Brock
02-08-2012, 10:36 AM
There is indeed logic in stating that contraception is wrong, if you take the time to learn it.

No, not at all. I KNOW why they oppose it, and there isn't one single scientific reason to support what they're saying.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 10:40 AM
No, not at all. I KNOW why they oppose it, and there isn't one single scientific reason to support what they're saying.

This is a ridiculous statement. OF COURSE there are reasons, just not reasons which you agree with. Why do they oppose it? I'm curious...

mikey23545
02-08-2012, 10:40 AM
I agree they can give to whoever they want. The outrage seemed to come from them pulling money from PP, not because they gave it to them in the first place. Nobody ever heard a peep about this until the funds were pulled. It was the pro-choice-abortion crowd that made the most noise about it.

FYP.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 10:44 AM
I'm not an anti-religious super nut by any stretch. I believe that if it helps you get through your day, then good for you. I've never been to church a day in my life and I never plan on it.
However, with the surplus population issues we currently are faced with, the Catholic Church needs to review they're policies and procedures a bit. You should only screw to procreate? Never whack off? Don't pull out?

Dude, time for a ****ing update maybe?

The Church does not teach that you should only screw to pro-create. Another of the many myths held by people who simply don't know what they're talking about when it comes to the Church. It's understandable given the fact that most info out there about the Church is wrong or skewed and people don't care to get to the actual truth of it.

The Church does NOT teach that you should only screw to procreate. It DOES teach that you should only have sexual relations inside the bonds of matrimony.

Just imagine how may abortions, unwed mothers, broken families and diseases we would eliminate if people would simply practice that one "Crazy" teaching of the Church.

HonestChieffan
02-08-2012, 10:44 AM
Only way for PP to grow the business is kill more babies.

Brock
02-08-2012, 10:56 AM
The Church does not teach that you should only screw to pro-create. Another of the many myths held by people who simply don't know what they're talking about when it comes to the Church. It's understandable given the fact that most info out there about the Church is wrong or skewed and people don't care to get to the actual truth of it.

The Church does NOT teach that you should only screw to procreate. It DOES teach that you should only have sexual relations inside the bonds of matrimony.

Just imagine how may abortions, unwed mothers, broken families and diseases we would eliminate if people would simply practice that one "Crazy" teaching of the Church.


You don't appear to know what your own church teaches.

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

dirk digler
02-08-2012, 10:56 AM
Only way for PP to grow the business is kill more babies.

Yep just checked abortion is still legal

Brock
02-08-2012, 10:58 AM
Only way for PP to grow the business is kill more babies.

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/mytphotos/fullSize/2/a/2a0ca-Good_Good_Let_the_Butt_hurt_flow_through.jpg

Gonzo
02-08-2012, 10:58 AM
The Church does not teach that you should only screw to pro-create. Another of the many myths held by people who simply don't know what they're talking about when it comes to the Church. It's understandable given the fact that most info out there about the Church is wrong or skewed and people don't care to get to the actual truth of it.

The Church does NOT teach that you should only screw to procreate. It DOES teach that you should only have sexual relations inside the bonds of matrimony.

Just imagine how may abortions, unwed mothers, broken families and diseases we would eliminate if people would simply practice that one "Crazy" teaching of the Church.
Ok, I wouldn't know. I'm sure most church's teachings may have modernized. I know that when my Father was an active catholic in the 1960's, they taught, "for procreation only."
As a whole, I think the church helps a good majority of the people that practice. It's a shame that a few hundred bad apples have tarnished the overall public view of the religion.
Meh, I worship the great sun-dog. He teaches drinking scotch and playing PS3 is a good way to spend a Sunday.
Posted via Mobile Device

dirk digler
02-08-2012, 11:05 AM
I find it interesting the church is more outraged about this then the tens of thousands of kids they molested and covered up.

HonestChieffan
02-08-2012, 11:09 AM
Yep just checked abortion is still legal


And very profitable as well

Dave Lane
02-08-2012, 11:16 AM
Everyone should just kill all their babies /anti religious nuts

See, I can do it too...

I'm cool with that. :thumb:

Its not gods choice and if he wanted that baby born he could have saved it /me

dirk digler
02-08-2012, 11:17 AM
And very profitable as well

The free market at work.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 11:17 AM
You don't appear to know what your own church teaches.

I do indeed know what they are teaching. Basically what I said. Gonzo stated that the Church says sex for procreation ONLY...that's a vast simplification of what the Church teaches. But, it DOES teach that we as humans should not mess with God's plan by purposefully frustrating the act of pro-creation. In our wedding vows, we vowed to be open to creating new life.

look, this gets complicated, but it's not as simple as saying no sex unless you are just planning on kids.

The quote you gave was this:

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

In other words, using each other as objects only, and not being open to the possibility of life.

Brock
02-08-2012, 11:20 AM
In other words, using each other as objects only, and not being open to the possibility of life.

That's not what it says, nor is it what it means.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 11:20 AM
I find it interesting the church is more outraged about this then the tens of thousands of kids they molested and covered up.

Dude, you are yet another of the many non-thinking Catholic haters on this site. If you really think that the molestation scandal did not deeply wound the 99.9% of Catholics that were not involved, including many of the bishops, then you are just not thinking.

And I'm sick of hearing it every time the Catholic Church enters the conversation. Try something new. That one's pretty old.

HonestChieffan
02-08-2012, 11:20 AM
The free market at work.

well not really free market with the taxpayers paying for so many of them.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 11:23 AM
That's not what it says, nor is it what it means.

OK, whatever. That's your opinion of what it says.

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. (Pope PiusXII, Discourse, 29 October 1951)

Pretty much dovetails nicely with what it says above.

dirk digler
02-08-2012, 11:27 AM
Dude, you are yet another of the many non-thinking Catholic haters on this site. If you really think that the molestation scandal did not deeply wound the 99.9% of Catholics that were not involved, including many of the bishops, then you are just not thinking.

And I'm sick of hearing it every time the Catholic Church enters the conversation. Try something new. That one's pretty old.

If it deeply wounded people they still wouldn't be Catholics.

I wonder if the priests use contraception when they bang the little kids?

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 11:31 AM
If it deeply wounded people they still wouldn't be Catholics.

I wonder if the priests use contraception when they bang the little kids?

That's a ridiculous statement. I've seen you be much more intelligent than that. Hatred makes people say and think stupid things.

I'm not happy about what we as Americans did to the slaves...or the Native Americans...or some of the nasty shit we did in Vietnam or any war...but I'm not about to denounce my citizenship.

Grow up.

Brock
02-08-2012, 11:35 AM
OK, whatever. That's your opinion of what it says.



Pretty much dovetails nicely with what it says above.

How does it dovetail with the following nutty claptrap?

"The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony) and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of life (n. 24)."

~ from the Vatican Pontifical Council for the Family, Vade Mecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life

dirk digler
02-08-2012, 11:44 AM
That's a ridiculous statement. I've seen you be much more intelligent than that. Hatred makes people say and think stupid things.

I'm not happy about what we as Americans did to the slaves...or the Native Americans...or some of the nasty shit we did in Vietnam or any war...but I'm not about to denounce my citizenship.

Grow up.

I think it is a legitimate question. I heard the howls from people that Obama sat in his church listening to anti-America, racist sermons and that he should have the left church. Yet I shouldn't think that Catholics shouldn't leave because they are being associated with a church that systematically molests children and covers it up?

Hell look at the KC bishop that was indicted a couple of months ago for covering up sexual abuses in one of his churches. He still has his job and just 2-3 days un-suspended a priest that was accused of sexual abuse.

Where is all this Catholic outrage?

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 11:46 AM
How does it dovetail with the following nutty claptrap?

It's basically saying that sex is part of God's plan for pro-creation, and the fact that it feels so good is a gift from God. It's not wrong to seek that pleasure, so long as you are not artificially frustrating the act of creation.

NOW, having said all that, I do think that the Church's stance on Natural Family Planning is a bit wonky. Using the rhythm method means that you are in a sense using birth control. Even if it's not Chemical or Physical like a condom. Basically the Church teaches us to exercise control over our bodies but not to allow our bodies to control us (ie: sex for pleasure ONLY with not a chance of creation)

I don't think you are a nut. I get that you are frustrated with the Church's teaching and that you really disagree with it, hence the name calling and such. I get pissed too. It's all I can do not to call people names all the friggin' time on this board. Most of the time I'm OK, but every now and then...

Mr. Plow
02-08-2012, 11:48 AM
You don't have a point. There is not logic to forbidding contraception, none, zero. It is a destructive and foolish viewpoint, and it fits right in with the viewpoints they've held in the past, such as when they were intimidating scientists into denying factual discoveries.

I'm not an anti-religious super nut by any stretch. I believe that if it helps you get through your day, then good for you. I've never been to church a day in my life and I never plan on it.
However, with the surplus population issues we currently are faced with, the Catholic Church needs to review they're policies and procedures a bit. You should only screw to procreate? Never whack off? Don't pull out?

Dude, time for a fucking update maybe?

Yes, if the Catholic Church would change it's beliefs on contraceptives, all the problems would be solved.

Gonzo
02-08-2012, 11:49 AM
That's a ridiculous statement. I've seen you be much more intelligent than that. Hatred makes people say and think stupid things.

I'm not happy about what we as Americans did to the slaves...or the Native Americans...or some of the nasty shit we did in Vietnam or any war...but I'm not about to denounce my citizenship.

Grow up.

Dude, as soon as these molestations stop being reported, the sooner people will stop bringing it up.

Based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2009.

The report stated there were approximately 10,667 reported victims (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse during this period:

Around 81 percent of these victims were male.
22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.[15][16][17]
A substantial number (almost 2000) of very young children were victimized by priests during this time period.

Brock
02-08-2012, 11:52 AM
It's not wrong to seek that pleasure, so long as you are not artificially frustrating the act of creation.

Uh, yeah. I understand that. It is the stupidity of teaching that very thing that leads me to think that anyone who would believe a ridiculous thing like that isn't anybody whose opinions should be taken seriously.

Brock
02-08-2012, 11:53 AM
Yes, if the Catholic Church would change it's beliefs on contraceptives, all the problems would be solved.

The problem of stupid people procreating because they think they HAVE to would be solved.

La literatura
02-08-2012, 11:55 AM
No, not at all. I KNOW why they oppose it, and there isn't one single scientific reason to support what they're saying.

The logic against contraception isn't found in applying some scientific formula. The logic is found in the Church's doctrine that contraception unnaturally destroys what God naturally intended for human beings to use sex as. Simply put, the belief is that human sex is a God given privilege that shows love, and creates more human life out of that love and God intended it to be so. The premise is that Unnaturally diverting the product of that privilege goes against God's intention. And going against God's intention is evil and must not be supported. Thus, contraception is condemned.

Disagree with the premises, but as far as logic goes, it's a sound statement.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 11:55 AM
I think it is a legitimate question. I heard the howls from people that Obama sat in his church listening to anti-America, racist sermons and that he should have the left church. Yet I shouldn't think that Catholics shouldn't leave because they are being associated with a church that systematically molests children and covers it up.

Hell look at the KC bishop that was indicted a couple of months ago for covering up sexual abuses in one of his churches. He still has his job and just 2-3 days un-suspended a priest that was accused of sexual abuse.

Where is all this Catholic outrage?

No, I was getting at the idea that I have to leave my Church because there are some assholes who do nasty things in it.

The Church does NOT systematically molest children. There was a cover up, and the Church is taking it's lumps for it. But it's not Church Doctrine, for God's sake.

La literatura
02-08-2012, 11:56 AM
I'm not an anti-religious super nut by any stretch. I believe that if it helps you get through your day, then good for you. I've never been to church a day in my life and I never plan on it.
However, with the surplus population issues we currently are faced with, the Catholic Church needs to review they're policies and procedures a bit. You should only screw to procreate? Never whack off? Don't pull out?

Dude, time for a fucking update maybe?

I think the update is in their promotion of natural family planning.

Brock
02-08-2012, 11:58 AM
The logic against contraception isn't found in applying some scientific formula. The logic is found in the Church's doctrine that contraception unnaturally destroys what God naturally intended for human beings to use sex as. Simply put, the belief is that human sex is a God given privilege that shows love, and creates more human life out of that love and God intended it to be so. The premise is that Unnaturally diverting the product of that privilege goes against God's intention. And going against God's intention is evil and must not be supported. Thus, contraception is condemned.

Disagree with the premises, but as far as logic goes, it's a sound statement.

There isn't any logic at all to "Because God said so". Especially considering He didn't.

La literatura
02-08-2012, 12:01 PM
There isn't any logic at all to "Because God said so".

I agree. That statement alone is not a construction of logical validity. However, if we start with the statement: "God said so [said contraception use is evil]". Add the premise: "Everything God says is correct and should be obeyed", We can find ourselves with the conclusion: "Contraception is evil."

La literatura
02-08-2012, 12:03 PM
Especially considering He didn't.

Well, that's arguing with a premise. I think it's a good argument to be had there. I'm disputing the alleged illogic of the Church's stance.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 12:05 PM
Dude, as soon as these molestations stop being reported, the sooner people will stop bringing it up.

Those numbers are from 1952 to 2002, not 2009. Not that it makes any difference in the sense that they are horrible numbers.

In the grand scheme of things, the sexual abuses by the Catholic Priests and Deacons are on par with the rest of society. It's just that because they are Catholic Priest, they were to be trusted, then they are villified and magnified.

There is not much point in arguing this logically, without sounding like an appoligist for Sexual Assault on children, so I'll just say this...

...it goes on everywhere. It's an abomination. It happens in schools, daycares, sports programs, the scouts, and most prevalently (and sadly) in families. It's disgusting.

There is not one Catholic who doesn't think so.

Gonzo
02-08-2012, 12:33 PM
Those numbers are from 1952 to 2002, not 2009. Not that it makes any difference in the sense that they are horrible numbers.

In the grand scheme of things, the sexual abuses by the Catholic Priests and Deacons are on par with the rest of society. It's just that because they are Catholic Priest, they were to be trusted, then they are villified and magnified.

There is not much point in arguing this logically, without sounding like an appoligist for Sexual Assault on children, so I'll just say this...

...it goes on everywhere. It's an abomination. It happens in schools, daycares, sports programs, the scouts, and most prevalently (and sadly) in families. It's disgusting.

There is not one Catholic who doesn't think so.

Stupid Wiki page...

I'm not saying that other organizations don't have issues with this as well, but do you honestly believe it's as prevalent? I also wonder if there's as much cover-up in those organizations.
At any rate, the conversation is degrading to Catholic Bashing and I apologize for allowing it to do so. You have your beliefs and you stick by them. I think that it takes someone with great conviction to do so after all of the incidents over the last 50-60 years.
Personally, I know a few people that abandoned when this was going on and I could not blame them a bit.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 01:17 PM
Stupid Wiki page...

I'm not saying that other organizations don't have issues with this as well, but do you honestly believe it's as prevalent? I also wonder if there's as much cover-up in those organizations.
At any rate, the conversation is degrading to Catholic Bashing and I apologize for allowing it to do so. You have your beliefs and you stick by them. I think that it takes someone with great conviction to do so after all of the incidents over the last 50-60 years.
Personally, I know a few people that abandoned when this was going on and I could not blame them a bit.

http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php

In the year 2000, 246,000 women survived rape and sexual assault. This computes to 28 women every hour.

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32315

Although child sexual abuse is reported almost 90,000 times a year, the numbers of unreported abuse is far greater because the children are afraid to tell anyone what has happened, and the legal procedure for validating an episode is difficult (American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 2004).

And on and on. A simple google search will show you the sad truth, that society in general is sick.

10K claims over 60 years is horrible. But it's nothing to the amount of confirmed rapes in one year alone, or the fact that in regular society, there are over 90K reports of child sexual abuse reported per year.

A little perspective.

And again, this in no way excuses the Church, especially for the coverups and the lame actions taken. They (we) are paying for it now. The broken trust will take generations to mend, as evidenced by people's reactions in this thread.

Cave Johnson
02-08-2012, 01:32 PM
And on and on. A simple google search will show you the sad truth, that society in general is sick.

10K claims over 60 years is horrible. But it's nothing to the amount of confirmed rapes in one year alone, or the fact that in regular society, there are over 90K reports of child sexual abuse reported per year.

A little perspective.

And again, this in no way excuses the Church, especially for the coverups and the lame actions taken. They (we) are paying for it now. The broken trust will take generations to mend, as evidenced by people's reactions in this thread.

So priests are less rapey than the general public? Break out the kazoos.

I'm sure that's comforting to the victims of priests who were passed from parish to parish.

Stewie
02-08-2012, 01:47 PM
I'm going to start a new charity called something like, "Save the Puppies and Kitties!" and organize a bunch of fat people to walk around a few city blocks. In a few years it will raise million$ per year nationwide and I'll get a huge salary. I'll then be the overlord for the rest of the "not-my-huge-salary-money" to align with my narrow views that has nothing to do with puppies and kitties.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 01:50 PM
So priests are less rapey than the general public? Break out the kazoos.

I'm sure that's comforting to the victims of priests who were passed from parish to parish.

Yeah Pittsie, that's what I'm getting at.:rolleyes:

See what I mean. No matter what I say, people just go down this road.

Do you honestly think that I'm defending this in any way? Seriously? The Church has people in it that screwed up royally. They ruined people's lives in some cases. But they are not the only ones who do this shit and get away with it. We are sick in society, and the leadership of the Church are weak men who don't always do the right thing.

The Church is paying for it now. We have had to close churches to pay for the lawsuits, the trust has been broken and will not be regained for generations. This means that all of the good the Church has done has been forgotten, and only this remains. Yes, the Church is in pain, and it is a self inflicted wound.

Well, I think I'm done with this thread. It always ends this way anyway.

whoman69
02-08-2012, 01:50 PM
The logic against contraception isn't found in applying some scientific formula. The logic is found in the Church's doctrine that contraception unnaturally destroys what God naturally intended for human beings to use sex as. Simply put, the belief is that human sex is a God given privilege that shows love, and creates more human life out of that love and God intended it to be so. The premise is that Unnaturally diverting the product of that privilege goes against God's intention. And going against God's intention is evil and must not be supported. Thus, contraception is condemned.

Disagree with the premises, but as far as logic goes, it's a sound statement.

Its their opinion, the work of men to try to guess God's intentions. God said thousands of years ago to go forth and multiply. At a time when there are more persons currently living than have died through all history, its entirely irresponsible to continue in that manner. There are plenty of practices from the bible that have been put aside.

Brock
02-08-2012, 01:54 PM
I'm going to start a new charity called something like, "Save the Puppies and Kitties!" and organize a bunch of fat people to walk around a few city blocks. In a few years it will raise million$ per year nationwide and I'll get a huge salary. I'll then be the overlord for the rest of the "not-my-huge-salary-money" to align with my narrow views that has nothing to do with puppies and kitties.

Don't forget the tax exempt status.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-08-2012, 01:56 PM
Its their opinion, the work of men to try to guess God's intentions. God said thousands of years ago to go forth and multiply. At a time when there are more persons currently living than have died through all history, its entirely irresponsible to continue in that manner. There are plenty of practices from the bible that have been put aside.

It's fine to be responsible, which involves not killing your young.

La literatura
02-08-2012, 02:04 PM
Its their opinion, the work of men to try to guess God's intentions. God said thousands of years ago to go forth and multiply. At a time when there are more persons currently living than have died through all history, its entirely irresponsible to continue in that manner. There are plenty of practices from the bible that have been put aside.

I think there's a lot to go over here. While I don't think we're at a point where we've reached unsustainablily at all, we can plausibly theorize ourselves in that situation in the future. Then what? Is the Church's view of natural family planning enough of a prevention? Should more people turn to lifelong abstinence? How malleable is that doctrine when faced with the actual existence of overcrowding? Is genetically modified food on planet colonies a more just alternative to contraception?

I don't know.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 02:48 PM
Its their opinion, the work of men to try to guess God's intentions. God said thousands of years ago to go forth and multiply. At a time when there are more persons currently living than have died through all history, its entirely irresponsible to continue in that manner. There are plenty of practices from the bible that have been put aside.

I believe that claim to be wildly exaggerated:

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx

But, it's been around for a long time. Nobody really knows the truth, but if you do the math, it's not bloody likely...

Amnorix
02-08-2012, 02:56 PM
There is indeed logic in stating that contraception is wrong, if you take the time to learn it.


Really, there just isn't. At least not without all the underlying religious stuff that supports it, which isn't logic, it's just faith. So there is a faith-based reason for stating that contraception is wrong, but no logic-based reason.

InChiefsHell
02-08-2012, 03:10 PM
Really, there just isn't. At least not without all the underlying religious stuff that supports it, which isn't logic, it's just faith. So there is a faith-based reason for stating that contraception is wrong, but no logic-based reason.
Sure, I guess. I don't find faith necessarily illogical, but I know what you are getting at.

I'm too tired to go on anyway.

La literatura
02-08-2012, 03:13 PM
So there is a faith-based reason for stating that contraception is wrong, but no logic-based reason.

With all due respect, this statement doesn't make any sense. There is a very logical argument (yes, religion is tied into its premises) to be made against contraception.

vailpass
02-08-2012, 03:18 PM
If it deeply wounded people they still wouldn't be Catholics.

I wonder if the priests use contraception when they bang the little kids?

Now would be a good time for you to shut the fuck up with that stupid talk.

The_Doctor10
02-08-2012, 03:19 PM
What would you rather have? 300,000 abortions or 300,000 unwanted kids who are going to make society infinitely shittier?

Look at countries That have widespread bans on abortions. We're talking countries like Sudan, Sierra leone, The Philippines, The ivory coast, Iran, Iraq, Belize, Jamaica, Bolivia etc.

Now tell me why the fuck you'd want America to be in that class of nations. Every place in the world that you'd actually want to live has legal abortion options. Why? Because unwanted kids make for a shitty society.

Stewie
02-08-2012, 03:35 PM
What would you rather have? 300,000 abortions or 300,000 unwanted kids who are going to make society infinitely shittier?

Look at countries That have widespread bans on abortions. We're talking countries like Sudan, Sierra leone, The Philippines, The ivory coast, Iran, Iraq, Belize, Jamaica, Bolivia etc.

Now tell me why the fuck you'd want America to be in that class of nations. Every place in the world that you'd actually want to live has legal abortion options. Why? Because unwanted kids make for a shitty society.

Really? These are shitty places to live because of abortion laws and no other reason? :rolleyes:

I've been to Belize. It's an awesome place. I had no idea there was a ban, but then again it wasn't a point of conversation.

The_Doctor10
02-08-2012, 04:30 PM
Really? These are shitty places to live because of abortion laws and no other reason? :rolleyes:

I've been to Belize. It's an awesome place. I had no idea there was a ban, but then again it wasn't a point of conversation.

It obviously isn't the ONLY issues, but when you consider that most of the shitty places on earth don't have good abortion policies, you might consider that it's a sign of the locals having too many kids that they don't know what to do with. Ergo, shitty society.

Also, I'm sure you had a great time in Belize. Would you move there? Would you enroll your kids in public schools in Belize? Would you live in a non-gated community in Belize with all the locals?

The only experience I have with Belize is the youth groups at the church I used to attend going down to build houses and schools for a month a year. Was that a great thing they did? Of course. Did I see any missionaries from Belize coming to Calgary to help us out? No. Why? Because we have most of our business sorted out.

Ignore the stats that say crime dropped dramatically after abortion was legalized. I get that stats can be twisted and manipulated to serve any agenda. Just ask yourself if you want to live in the first world.

The_Doctor10
02-08-2012, 04:36 PM
With all due respect, this statement doesn't make any sense. There is a very logical argument (yes, religion is tied into its premises) to be made against contraception.

But if it's an argument tied to religion, then it's irrelevant. It then comes down to separation of Church and State, which is there for a reason. Nobody is forcing you to use contraception or have an abortion, but there are people who do make use of those options.

We have a biological imperative to mate. That's all there is to it. It's why you get ornery when you go a week without beating off. So if you want to have sex, have sex. But take precautions to prevent children or the spread of disease if you don't want either.

This is a personal freedom issue. You live in America. You should be on the side of freedom.

stevieray
02-08-2012, 06:13 PM
But if it's an argument tied to religion, then it's irrelevant. It then comes down to separation of Church and State, which is there for a reason.

This is a personal freedom issue.

ya, it's there to keep the state out of religion, not the other way around....which is exactly why this an issue, and being pushed/mandated by the STATE.

This isn't a personal freedom issue. It's basically giving power to women to avoid accountability for their actions, giving them authority over a man's seed, and terminating a fertilized egg like they hold the patent for the miracle of life.

pro choice? what a load....what is the opposite of choice?

whoman69
02-08-2012, 06:56 PM
ya, it's there to keep the state out of religion, not the other way around....which is exactly why this an issue, and being pushed/mandated by the STATE.

This isn't a personal freedom issue. It's basically giving power to women to avoid accountability for their actions, giving them authority over a man's seed, and terminating a fertilized egg like they hold the patent for the miracle of life.

pro choice? what a load....what is the opposite of choice?

What about a man's responsibility?

Contraception is a choice, but some religions are against that too.

KC native
02-08-2012, 07:54 PM
ya, it's there to keep the state out of religion, not the other way around....which is exactly why this an issue, and being pushed/mandated by the STATE.

This isn't a personal freedom issue. It's basically giving power to women to avoid accountability for their actions, giving them authority over a man's seed, and terminating a fertilized egg like they hold the patent for the miracle of life.

pro choice? what a load....what is the opposite of choice?

ROFL so much stupid from DUuh HeMAnZ WOmEnz H8RZ KlUb. ROFL

stevieray
02-08-2012, 07:56 PM
What about a man's responsibility?

Contraception is a choice, but some religions are against that too.

ya, let's not focus on the woman, because it's about her "health"....but I'll respond....it's a double edged sword..his responsiblity is diminished and abortion gives him an out also...doesn't change the point being presented.

what is the opposite of choice?..regardless that the ORIGINAL choice is is the cause of the effect, and we like to pretend like it's irrelevant.

stevieray
02-08-2012, 08:00 PM
ROFL so much stupid from DUuh HeMAnZ WOmEnz H8RZ KlUb. ROFL

you epitomize insecurity...sad, really.

..been married for almost twenty years, pretty confident you'll never be able to make a similar claim.

KC native
02-08-2012, 08:01 PM
ya, let's not focus on the woman, because it's about her "health"....but I'll respond....it's a double edged sword..his responsiblity is diminished and abortion gives him an out also...doesn't change the point being presented.

what is the opposite of choice?..regardless that the ORIGINAL choice is is the cause of the effect, and we like to pretend like it's irrelevant.

You are a fucking moron. It is the woman's health. They're the ones that go through the complications of pregnancy jackass. Did you make it past 6th grade?

stevieray
02-08-2012, 08:24 PM
You are a ****ing moron. It is the woman's health. They're the ones that go through the complications of pregnancy jackass. Did you make it past 6th grade?

translation; I'm so desperate for negative attention, I can't discern that the topic is about abortion (which completely disregards the child's health) and not about carrying a child to full term.

dirk digler
02-08-2012, 08:42 PM
ya, it's there to keep the state out of religion, not the other way around....which is exactly why this an issue, and being pushed/mandated by the STATE.

This isn't a personal freedom issue. It's basically giving power to women to avoid accountability for their actions, giving them authority over a man's seed, and terminating a fertilized egg like they hold the patent for the miracle of life.

pro choice? what a load....what is the opposite of choice?

Are you totally against abortion? What about the cases where the baby won't survive out of the womb or maybe born dead? There was a couple people on this board who have experienced this and was recommended by the doctor to get an abortion.

La literatura
02-08-2012, 08:49 PM
But if it's an argument tied to religion, then it's irrelevant. It then comes down to separation of Church and State, which is there for a reason. Nobody is forcing you to use contraception or have an abortion, but there are people who do make use of those options.

We have a biological imperative to mate. That's all there is to it. It's why you get ornery when you go a week without beating off. So if you want to have sex, have sex. But take precautions to prevent children or the spread of disease if you don't want either.

This is a personal freedom issue. You live in America. You should be on the side of freedom.

There are competing rights at issue here. Argue which one you think is more important, but there's no reason to portray the opposing side as being 'against freedom.' The Church is obviously claiming a loss of religious freedom in the regulation.

"But if it's an argument tied to religion, then it's irrelevant. It then comes down to separation of Church and State . . ."

This is a ridiculous phrase. Do I have a right to send my children to a religious school, or can the state compel parents to send their children to a public school? In America, it's considered a constitutionally fundamental right that parents can send their children to religious schools, and statutes forbidding that are deemed unconstitutional.

The_Doctor10
02-08-2012, 10:15 PM
There are competing rights at issue here. Argue which one you think is more important, but there's no reason to portray the opposing side as being 'against freedom.' The Church is obviously claiming a loss of religious freedom in the regulation.

"But if it's an argument tied to religion, then it's irrelevant. It then comes down to separation of Church and State . . ."

This is a ridiculous phrase. Do I have a right to send my children to a religious school, or can the state compel parents to send their children to a public school? In America, it's considered a constitutionally fundamental right that parents can send their children to religious schools, and statutes forbidding that are deemed unconstitutional.

If you are arguing that abortion should be illegal for any reason that is based in religion, then it is not a ridiculous phrase. Though you were talking about contrceptives if I recall, so this may be an irrelevant tangent.

The point is this: you hve every right to your religious freedom. But that freedom doesn't and shouldn't extend to a law about a medical procedure. If your religious beliefs do not permit abortion, that's fine. Don't get one.

Now, I understand that you may be upset that some of your tax dollars are being misused. But that's not unique to abortion.

Ultimately, the united states will keep abortion legal because secularly speaking, it is the right thing to do. Its the first world thing to do. And America fancies itself the leader of the free world. It can't be that with policies that line up more with Uganda than France.

Amnorix
02-09-2012, 06:15 AM
ya, it's there to keep the state out of religion, not the other way around....which is exactly why this an issue, and being pushed/mandated by the STATE.

:spock: errr....no. Completely NOT accurate.


This isn't a personal freedom issue. It's basically giving power to women to avoid accountability for their actions, giving them authority over a man's seed, and terminating a fertilized egg like they hold the patent for the miracle of life.

pro choice? what a load....what is the opposite of choice?


:spock:

Amnorix
02-09-2012, 06:16 AM
With all due respect, this statement doesn't make any sense. There is a very logical argument (yes, religion is tied into its premises) to be made against contraception.


Ok, shoot (no pun intended), what is the non-faith-based logical argument?

Amnorix
02-09-2012, 06:17 AM
Sure, I guess. I don't find faith necessarily illogical, but I know what you are getting at.

I'm too tired to go on anyway.


I understand what you're saying. The precepts of the Catholic church are (to the extent I know them) internally consistent and therefore have their own logic. But the foundation of that logic rests on the faith from which those precepts are derived. At least IMHO.

Dave Lane
02-09-2012, 06:31 AM
Sure, I guess. I don't find faith necessarily illogical, but I know what you are getting at.

I'm too tired to go on anyway.

Hard to defend stupidity. I can see it would be tiring.

Amnorix
02-09-2012, 06:35 AM
A few quotes on keeping religion out of government (note that plenty are available going the other way, keeping government out of religion, which I do not argue at all):

Thomas Jefferson:

The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800).

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qjeffson.htm


James Madison:

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).


John Adams

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, US Consul)

InChiefsHell
02-09-2012, 06:37 AM
Hard to defend stupidity. I can see it would be tiring.
Ah, blow it out your ass Dave...

stevieray
02-09-2012, 08:22 AM
:spock: errr....no. Completely NOT accurate.





:spock:

ya, it is....government can't tell you who or how to worship. period.

women do not get pregnant without a man's seed. exactly why men are responsible for their children... at that point there are others involved, not just the woman.

Samson
02-09-2012, 08:41 AM
I really have no particular bone in the fight, but I find it interesting how labels are thrown around. One article's argument is supposed to be "aborted" because it's written by a pro-life Christian.

If that argument holds, then should we label pro-planned parenthood articles from pro-choice agnostics?

Of course, they're not...at least, from those who agree with them.

So if you're Christian, and you value unborn life....SHUT UP ALREADY, STUPID.

KC native
02-09-2012, 03:39 PM
you epitomize insecurity...sad, really.

..been married for almost twenty years, pretty confident you'll never be able to make a similar claim.

Uh oh, here comes holier than thou suzie. ROFL

I've been with my wifey for 10 years and stll going strong. Try again dipshit

Amnorix
02-10-2012, 10:01 AM
ya, it is....government can't tell you who or how to worship. period.

Yes, that is true. No argument there. I was noting a separate item, but it's not really all that important to the discussion anyway. Suffice to say that the Founding Fathers were NOT planning a theocracy.

women do not get pregnant without a man's seed. exactly why men are responsible for their children... at that point there are others involved, not just the woman.


Your analogizing women to a patch of dirt is, umm, interesting.

And also irrelevant since I damn well know that even if both seed (man) and dirt (woman) agree to abort, you still wouldn't permit it.

stevieray
02-10-2012, 06:17 PM
[QUOTE=Amnorix;8362952]



Your analogizing women to a patch of dirt is, umm, interesting.

QUOTE]

ya, that's exactly what I said...:rolleyes:

spare us the drama.

Brock
02-10-2012, 06:22 PM
And also irrelevant since I damn well know that even if both seed (man) and dirt (woman) agree to abort, you still wouldn't permit it.

Fact.

stevieray
02-10-2012, 06:25 PM
Fact.

hardly....people can choose whatever they want, thick as a brock.

Brock
02-10-2012, 06:26 PM
hardly....people can choose whatever they want, thick as a brock.

Sure, stevie. You're as reasonable as any complete loon could be.

stevieray
02-10-2012, 06:27 PM
Sure, stevie. You're as reasonable as any complete loon could be.

awww, and there it is. feel better?

LMAO

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 06:42 PM
hardly....people can choose whatever they want, thick as a brock.

I asked this earlier to you and I am sure you got busy and missed it. Thanks.

Are you totally against abortion? What about the cases where the baby won't survive out of the womb or maybe born dead? There was a couple people on this board who have experienced this and was recommended by the doctor to get an abortion.

stevieray
02-10-2012, 06:51 PM
I asked this earlier to you and I am sure you got busy and missed it. Thanks.

sorry...

I don't agree with it...I think there are ultimately two victims....any women that tells you going through it that it isn't a big deal is lying, IMO.

I also believe it plays into marginalizing both life and children, and therefore somewhat propigates deadbeat parents.

La literatura
02-10-2012, 06:54 PM
.any women that tells you going through it that it isn't a big deal is lying, IMO.

I'm on the pro-life side of the debate, but are there women who go through that and say it isn't a big deal?

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 06:57 PM
sorry...

I don't agree with it...I think there are ultimately two victims....any women that tells you going through it that it isn't a big deal is lying, IMO.

I also believe it plays into marginalizing both life and children, and therefore somewhat propigates deadbeat parents.

No need to apologize we all get busy. Thank you for answering and I agree with you that women who have been through it think it is a very big deal and really struggle with it the rest of their lives... At least the couple of women that I know that had ones (not my babies)

HonestChieffan
02-10-2012, 07:22 PM
Remember they are not babies. It's just stuff sucked out and flushed. That's why the PP's of the world don't want a sonogram.

Plus it's profitable and Obama and his followers seem to like when a baby is aborted.

La literatura
02-10-2012, 07:38 PM
Remember they are not babies. It's just stuff sucked out and flushed. That's why the PP's of the world don't want a sonogram.

Plus it's profitable and Obama and his followers seem to like when a baby is aborted.

Well, thanks for going there with it.

stevieray
02-10-2012, 07:53 PM
No need to apologize we all get busy. Thank you for answering and I agree with you that women who have been through it think it is a very big deal and really struggle with it the rest of their lives... At least the couple of women that I know that had ones (not my babies)

you bet...:)

....and in my experiences as well.

...people say "don't want an abortion? don't get one..." the flip side of that is... "don't want an abortion? well, don't get pregnant..."

HonestChieffan
02-10-2012, 07:58 PM
Well, thanks for going there with it.

Well it seems very accurate. If they waited 60 days and tossed the baby in the river it's murder. Timing makes it all ok.