[finboy]

For those of you on the left, does it make you uncomfortable when Pelosi et al jump into the spotlight to talk about how it might be "difficult for women" under a Republican budget, or when they talk about how many children will die under the current budget? Does it embarrass you?

There are plenty of moron politicians on the right who embarrass me when I hear them speak, but the statements coming from the left this week are just pathetic.

Can't you guys find better people to represent you? These guys have to go to fear or race, or race fear, or "the children" or something every time an argument is made. Isn't there somebody out there who can argue for the progressive agenda without pandering?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Can't you guys find better people to represent you? These guys have to go to fear or race, or race fear, or "the children" or something every time an argument is made. Isn't there somebody out there who can argue for the progressive agenda without pandering?

Remove race and insert religion and this applies to the right equally well. And I believe the answer is yes, I do not care for these people. I did not like the cut of Pelosi's jib when they were talking of making her speaker. Of course, I don't care for any politicians. I wouldn't be surprised if most of you said the same.

Out of curiosity, how do you guys feel about the current speaker's penchant for getting teary eyed?

[sek929]

Well, for one instance, under the new GOP spending bill planned parenthood will be cut from the budget, so I imagine it would be quite difficult to get free health services (like mammograms and pap smears) if you relied on such services in the past. Of course everyone hears PP and thinks ABORTIONS!!! but in reality those are a small fraction of the overall healthcare PP provides to women.

Past that, Republicans are masters at using people's irrational fear of outside aggression and the destruction of our country to push their agenda, and are no less rhetoric-filled than anything Pelosi would say. Democrats use social hyperbole to push their points, Republicans use fear of our 'enemies' to push theirs.

All in all I think anyone who vehemently defends their party of choice, no matter the circumstance, should be embarrassed with what they are aligning themselves with.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Out of curiosity, how do you guys feel about the current speaker's penchant for getting teary eyed?

I think any self-respecting Republican should consider him a massive pussy.

[CreepDogg]

I think both sides use equally repugnant 'tactics' in making their point. I'm not really embarrassed for one side or the other, as they're both moronic, but I guess I'd say it is a little embarrassing overall as a citizen that we have so much muss and fuss over such petty BS. And yes, most of the issues at this point are petty BS - there may be some big ideological differences (though I'm not even sure of that), but it manifests in petty ways. The issue may be super-important to some people, but sorry guys, the fate of the nation does not rest on whether or not Planned Parenthood gets federal funding. Petty.

To me, THAT is what is embarassing.

Originally Posted by finboy 

Isn't there somebody out there who can argue for the progressive agenda without pandering?

I'm sure there are people who can make effective arguments for whatever action they want to take. But I think it's always harder to argue for a specific action than for inaction. By their nature, human actions will be flawed in some ways, so it's always easy to point out the flaws and argue for inertia. It does take skill and passion to overcome that.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Isn't there somebody out there who can argue for the progressive agenda without pandering?

Well to be fair…how else are they going to argue for the progressive agenda? Without an appeal to emotion what else have they got?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Remove race and insert religion and this applies to the right equally well.

I don't understand the analogy. Could you elaborate on that please?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Well, for one instance, under the new GOP spending bill planned parenthood will be cut from the budget, so I imagine it would be quite difficult to get free health services (like mammograms and pap smears) if you relied on such services in the past. Of course everyone hears PP and thinks ABORTIONS!!! but in reality those are a small fraction of the overall healthcare PP provides to women.

That would be the fear and division part. Planned Parenthood is already prohibited from using their funds for abortions. It's already a law. Republicans keep pushing for a redundant law, not because it'll do anything, but because they want people to associate Planned Parenthood with only abortion, nevermind that information regarding abortions is a tiny fraction of the services provided by Planned Parenthood.

Since the introduction of Planned Parenthood, abortion rates in general have dropped 33% overall in America since the 1970s, over 50% in teen pregnancies alone. Sexually transmitted diseases have dropped 93% since Planned Parenthood was introduced... and they want to defund it.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

That would be the fear and division part. Planned Parenthood is already prohibited from using their funds for abortions. It's already a law. Republicans keep pushing for a redundant law, not because it'll do anything, but because they want people to associate Planned Parenthood with only abortion, nevermind that abortion is a tiny fraction of the services provided by Planned Parenthood.

Yep.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't understand the analogy. Could you elaborate on that please?

Most of the rights arguments rely on fear, religion, or think of the children. See: 2000-2008

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Well to be fair…how else are they going to argue for the progressive agenda? Without an appeal to emotion what else have they got?

Well of course! Any 'progressive' notion basically boils down to an action that will change or add to the structure of society. So the argument for or against it comes down to how we want to collectively form our society. That's emotional at its core. Again, it's much easier to argue in favor of inertia.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Well of course! Any 'progressive' notion basically boils down to an action that will change or add to the structure of society. So the argument for or against it comes down to how we want to collectively form our society. That's emotional at its core. Again, it's much easier to argue in favor of inertia.

More specifically, the progressive agenda, broadly and most generically speaking, boils down to the desire to pool resources to fix some social cost. That there exists a social cost worth fixing is the whole point.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I think any self-respecting Republican should consider him a massive pussy.

There aren't any self-respecting Republicans anymore. Great Republicans like this just don't exist these days...

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." - Eisenhower.

Does that embarrass you, finhead?

Only Americans can hurt America. - Eisenhower

Remember that when conservatives tell you terrorists and anchor babies are gonna hurt America.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Since the introduction of Planned Parenthood, abortion rates in general have dropped 33% overall in America since the 1970s, over 50% in teen pregnancies alone. Sexually transmitted diseases have dropped 93% since Planned Parenthood was introduced... and they want to defund it.

Amazing what informing people with the truth can do. Not to mention, can't we simply not build a single F-22 and fund PP for a decade?

Why isn't our out-of control defense budget, that I'm sure is 10 times the size they let us know about, under scrutiny? I'm supposed to believe public services like PP and Public Broadcasting getting cut is going to make any difference past Conservative pandering to their voting base?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Amazing what informing people with the truth can do. Not to mention, can't we simply not build a single F-22 and fund PP for a decade?

Why isn't our out-of control defense budget, that I'm sure is 10 times the size they let us know about, under scrutiny? I'm supposed to believe public services like PP and Public Broadcasting getting cut is going to make any difference past Conservative pandering to their voting base?

Yeah, this is where I have a clever solution to defunding each sides sacred cows – slash funding for liberal ones (such as PP) by a percentage equal to how much is slashed from the other sides.

[subego]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

That would be the fear and division part. Planned Parenthood is already prohibited from using their funds for abortions. It's already a law.

The current law is smoke and mirrors.

I don't necessarily support a new law, but the one we have now keeps abortions from being federally funded in name only.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by subego 

The current law is smoke and mirrors.

I don't necessarily support a new law, but the one we have now keeps abortions from being federally funded in name only.

I don't understand. Planned Parenthood does not perform abortions.

[subego]

What Happens During an Abortion - In-Clinic Abortion Cost

[ebuddy]

This is what happens when two sides stick to their positions. This budget debate is about much more than the immediate matters being discussed. The fact is, this started at $61 billion, has been whittled down to $38 billion and if they can't get this through without the outstanding riders; there is absolutely no way we'll ever talk trillions. Ever. This budget isn't even serious and it's causing this much uproar. Republicans were challenged to come up with their own ideas so they've done it. No budget was produced while the Democrats had the majority, they don't like the Republican ideals, but they've got no ideals of their own. This is how it's going to have to be unfortunately if we're ever going to gain any ground.

For those who continue insisting that Planned Parenthood would suffer without funding, fear not. They receive over $209 million in private donations (as it should be) and an additional $65 million in profits per year. This may be exactly what they need to find efficiencies like everyone else is having to do.

• Republicans are full of crap for stuffing the stop-pay for government shutdown within the bill being debated so of course if the bill being debated does not pass and the government shuts down, they'll get paid. The Senate did their part and the Republicans flaked. None of them should be getting paid and this tactic is exactly the kind of shenanigans people are sick and tired of.
• The Democrats are full of crap over the FUD they're peddling to keep the status quo, including military spending which they're going to need for sustaining Bush's wars and starting their own new ones against sovereign countries who haven't attacked us, without Congressional approval.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

For those who continue insisting that Planned Parenthood would suffer without funding, fear not. They receive over $209 million in private donations (as it should be) and an additional $65 million in profits per year. This may be exactly what they need to find efficiencies like everyone else is having to do.

I think the fear here is not that PP would suffer, but that this would cause a reduction of services to poorer rural areas. These places (arguably) need their services (non-abortion included) the most.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by subego 

What Happens During an Abortion - In-Clinic Abortion Cost

Planned Parenthood does not perform abortions. That's simply an information page on the different kinds of abortions, with a link at the top for locating a health clinic.

[subego]

It says the in-clinic abortions are "[a]vailable from many Planned Parenthood health centers".

[finboy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Well to be fair…how else are they going to argue for the progressive agenda? Without an appeal to emotion what else have they got?

I get that, but I still expect SOMEBODY to come forward with logic. Big disappointment.

I'm tired of arguing against the same old emotional diatribes.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I get that, but I still expect SOMEBODY to come forward with logic. Big disappointment.

I'm tired of arguing against the same old emotional diatribes.

I feel the same way. People are indeed emotional creatures.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think the fear here is not that PP would suffer, but that this would cause a reduction of services to poorer rural areas. These places (arguably) need their services (non-abortion included) the most.

Agreed and while I didn't include specifics, this is among the FUD being peddled. Poorer rural area services are available through Medicaid and PP offices are mostly in poorer urban areas also covered by Medicaid.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Agreed and while I didn't include specifics, this is among the FUD being peddled. Poorer rural area services are available through Medicaid and PP offices are mostly in poorer urban areas also covered by Medicaid.

Which they also want to eliminate.

[subego]

@ebuddy,

I'm not an expert on Medicaid, but a quick zip over to Wiki seems to indicate there's a vast swath of people who wouldn't qualify but are still in need of low cost services.

WRT the actual location of clinics, just because a clinic is in an urban area doesn't mean they only service urban clients.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Which they also want to eliminate.

This is exactly the FUD-peddling that people are getting tired of.

Slowing the rate of increase over 10 years = elimination. This is why a paltry $38 billion measure almost shut the government down. Discipline = death.

Like I've said, if you're a fan of government spending, let the spending stand on their own merits and be proud of the expenditures. What you can't do is hold on to each and every last duplicative pet under Federal funding and pretend you're serious about cutting spending.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

@ebuddy,

I'm not an expert on Medicaid, but a quick zip over to Wiki seems to indicate there's a vast swath of people who wouldn't qualify but are still in need of low cost services.

WRT the actual location of clinics, just because a clinic is in an urban area doesn't mean they only service urban clients.

The NCCC sponsors a nationwide, free Pap test day on January 14th each year for example among a wealth of available free breast exams, etc... i.e. Yes, PP's location is not relegated to serving specific geographical boundaries, but I've not heard the primary concern being "poorer rural areas" and PP's services are not exclusive to PP.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The NCCC sponsors a nationwide, free Pap test day on January 14th each year for example...

Sounds like a reduction of services to me.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I've not heard the primary concern being "poorer rural areas" and PP's services are not exclusive to PP.

What is the primary concern you've heard?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Sounds like a reduction of services to me.

The point of contention is whether or not it is the place of the Federal Government to provide these services to begin with, particularly when they are available elsewhere under Federal funding and especially when outgo exceeds income. If PP does not use a portion of their profits to provide pap tests and contraceptives, the reduction of the services they provide is their decision and should not be used to hold a Federal budget hostage. When your expenditures exceed your income, reduction of some sort must be an option no?

What is the primary concern you've heard?

Recently?
One side - the entire country (honest or not)
The other side - women and poor people (honest or not)

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The point of contention is whether or not it is the place of the Federal Government to provide these services to begin with...

It sounds like you do want to kill Medicaid.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If PP does not use a portion of their profits

PP has profits? I thought it was a nonprofit organization?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

reduction of some sort must be an option no?

I'm not saying it isn't an option, I'm only pointing out whom that option will affect the most.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Recently?
One side - the entire country (honest or not)
The other side - women and poor people (honest or not)

Can you clarify the first side? I'm not 100% sure what you mean.

OTOH, you have accurately pegged my primary concern in this regard as being women and poor people.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

It sounds like you do want to kill Medicaid.

It sounds like it'd be a waste of my time to explain otherwise.

PP has profits? I thought it was a nonprofit organization?

If you're curious, google it. Their profits are well-documented.

I'm not saying it isn't an option, I'm only pointing out whom that option will affect the most.

You said "access to low-cost services", I gave you free in 30 seconds' time.

Can you clarify the first side? I'm not 100% sure what you mean.

Think about it first.

OTOH, you have accurately pegged my primary concern in this regard as being women and poor people.

I'm skeptical.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It sounds like it'd be a waste of my time to explain otherwise.


.

Now you're starting to get it. It doesn't matter what you say - the religion of the New Left is government = good, individual = bad. Self-reliance is the next form of treason. The expectation that government will care for you cradle to grave is becoming more ingrained all the time, to the point that eventually government will be able to guarantee its audience. Unless, that is, the Right makes some inroads against government unions, unchallenged public sector growth, and media bias.

Two out of three so far.

[subego]

@ebuddy

I'm not sure what I've said you feel deserves this level of snark, however if the conversation is to continue in this fashion, I'm just not interested.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

There aren't any self-respecting Republicans anymore. Great Republicans like this just don't exist these days...

Does that embarrass you, finhead?

Remember that when conservatives tell you terrorists and anchor babies are gonna hurt America.

This is very true. Because only Americans can allow anchor-baby-families to come in and sponge off the system. I never thought of it this way.

BTW, aren't you Canadian or something?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

@ebuddy

I'm not sure what I've said you feel deserves this level of snark, however if the conversation is to continue in this fashion, I'm just not interested.

An effective two-way conversation must follow a sane, relevant, and predictable exchange of banter. For example, when I'm discussing the elimination of Federal funds for PP, it makes no sense to respond by claiming I want to kill Medicaid. This is just spring-boarding off someone else's post for an emotionally-charged dig against a caricature of the others' position.

This type of conversation is quickly becoming the norm here and one must decide whether this is the rare, fruitful discussion or simply entertaining someone else's disingenuousness. I'm not interested in the latter.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

An effective two-way conversation must follow a sane, relevant, and predictable exchange of banter. For example, when I'm discussing the elimination of Federal funds for PP, it makes no sense to respond by claiming I want to kill Medicaid. This is just spring-boarding off someone else's post for an emotionally-charged dig against a caricature of the others' position.

This type of conversation is quickly becoming the norm here and one must decide whether this is the rare, fruitful discussion or simply entertaining someone else's disingenuousness. I'm not interested in the latter.

Honestly, neither am I, and it's a bit frustrating because we've had more than a half-dozen discussions to this effect.

You made a claim PP shouldn't be funded because Medicaid duplicates these services.

You then made the claim was there is a question whether these [PP's] services should be provided by the Federal government.

Since there is significant overlap here, your position, as stated, sounds like you would question whether Medicaid's services should be provided by the government.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

You made a claim PP shouldn't be funded because Medicaid duplicates these services.

You then made the claim was there is a question whether these [PP's] services should be provided by the Federal government.

That was the only point; that these means-tested services are already provided by the Federal government. There's a question whether the Federal government should be funding PP for the reasons offered by its proponents because they are already available and funded by the Federal government under Medicaid. Of course, not to exclude the ideological component that exists on both sides of the debate.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That was the only point; that these means-tested services are already provided by the Federal government. There's a question whether the Federal government should be funding PP for the reasons offered by its proponents because they are already available and funded by the Federal government under Medicaid. Of course, not to exclude the ideological component that exists on both sides of the debate.

Okay. That makes sense.

I thought you were referring to the notion the Federal Government should get out of the health care business altogether, which BTW isn't an unreasonable position. There's a good argument this should be taken care of on state and local levels. My point with the statement was if that rationale is used for one, it's inconsistent not to apply it to the other.

Ironically, the rest of the post which precipitated this is asking you questions precisely to avoid this kind of misinterpretation. I wanted you to clarify your position because I'm afraid of putting words in your mouth. Even so, I still ended up doing it, and apologize. I hope you can take me at my word it was not intentional. I was only trying to interpret things to the best of my ability.

[Chongo]

Planned Parenthood of America is now dealing the reduction of services fear card.
YouTube - Planned Parenthood cheats taxpayers with imaginary mammograms

I hope The Susan G. Komen Center asks for the money back it's been giving PPA to provide mammograms.
The law says federal funds can't be used for abortions, but it goes pay leases, utilities etc for PPA, so it is at least subsidizing abortion. The only way be sure that federal money is not subsidizing abortions is for PPA to split itself into two agencies. One that provides preventive services, and one that provides medical/chemical abortion services

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Planned Parenthood does not perform abortions. That's simply an information page on the different kinds of abortions, with a link at the top for locating a health clinic.

According to Abby Johnson, former director of a PPA center in Texas, PPA's main focus is providing abortions, and has mandated that all PPA facilities are to provide on site abortion services.
There are nine PPA centers in Phoenix area, and eight provide on site medical abortion services. The other is the administration office.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by finboy 

These guys have to go to fear or race, or race fear, or "the children" or something every time an argument is made.

That's pretty much all there is to emo/leftwing politics.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Planned Parenthood of America is now dealing the reduction of services fear card.
YouTube - Planned Parenthood cheats taxpayers with imaginary mammograms

Is there any lie you will not propagate with all your energy?

She did not claim that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms services. She said the bill will reduce access to mammograms, which was completely true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...O3B_story.html

“Planned Parenthood is first and foremost an abortion business, but Planned Parenthood and its allies will say almost anything to try and cover up that fact and preserve its taxpayer funding,” Rose said.

No, it's not "first and foremost an abortion business", you contemptible, lying b!tch.

St Paul said liars will not enter the Kingdom of God. Since you won't listen to the advice of liberals, will you at least listen to the advice of your own?

[Chongo]

St Paul said they will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
NAB

9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God

RSV

[9]Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, [10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

KJV

9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

BTW what has Planned Parenthood been doing with all that Susan G. Komen money that was given to provide women with mammograms?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Planned Parenthood of America is now dealing the reduction of services fear card.
YouTube - Planned Parenthood cheats taxpayers with imaginary mammograms

If you can hook me up with a text version of this story, I promise I'll read it with diligence, but I just can't handle YouTube videos in a debate.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you can hook me up with a text version of this story, I promise I'll read it with diligence, but I just can't handle YouTube videos in a debate.

I'm sure the youtube comments would make an excellent placeholder in the meantime.
bwahaha

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

St Paul said they will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Are you correcting me or something?

BTW what has Planned Parenthood been doing with all that Susan G. Komen money that was given to provide women with mammograms?

Who said the money is for mammograms? There are plenty of other possible services. Breast self-exam education maybe?

EDIT: a quick Google for Planned Parenthood and Susan G. Komen led to an endless circle-jerk of rightwing blogs, but it also revealed this: http://www.examiner.com/conservative...ned-parenthood

March 2009

An open letter about Susan G. Komen for the Cure® and Planned Parenthood

This year, as in the past, Susan G. Komen for the Cure® is being criticized by some for funding a handful of women’s health programs run by, or with ties to, Planned Parenthood. I’m writing this letter to explain our position and to correct any misinformation you may have heard about this issue.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure exists for only one reason: to save lives and to end breast cancer forever. In the past 27 years, we’ve invested more than $1.3 billion to accomplish those goals through research and for programs that educate, screen and treat people in communities all around the world.

Early screening through mammograms and education are critical to end the suffering from this disease: 98 percent of women treated for early stage breast cancer, before it spreads, are alive five years later. The widespread use of mammography and heightened public awareness of breast cancer both contribute to these favorable statistics.

And while Komen Affiliates provide funds to pay for screening, education and treatment programs in dozens of communities, in some areas, the only place that poor, uninsured or under-insured women can receive these services are through programs run by Planned Parenthood.

These facilities serve rural women, poor women, Native American women, women of color, and the un- and under-insured. As part of our financial arrangements, we monitor our grantees twice a year to be sure they are spending the money in line with our agreements, and we are assured that Planned Parenthood uses these funds only for breast health education, screening and treatment programs.

As long as there is a need for health care for these women, we will continue to fund the facilities that meet that need.

Ethicists in the Catholic Church have also examined this issue. One year ago, two Catholic ethicists – Ron Hamel, Ph.D. and Michael Panicola, Ph.D. – examined the moral implications of our funding decision. They concluded that it was morally permissible for the church to be involved with Komen in light of its funding agreements with Planned Parenthood.

“The fact that some Komen affiliates, at times, provide funding to Planned Parenthood specifically and solely for breast health services cannot on the face of it be construed as wrongdoing,” the ethicists wrote. “The good that Komen does and the harm that would come to so many women if Komen ceased to exist or ceased to be funded would seem to be a sufficiently proportionate reason” for Catholics to support our funding decisions (emphasis added).

Another piece of misinformation being spread by many who criticize Komen for the Cure for its Planned Parenthood grants is that abortion causes breast cancer. Well conducted research consistently fails to support this claim. We agree with the bulk of scientific evidence – from the National Cancer Institute, Harvard, a rigorous study in Denmark and from Oxford University – that there is no conclusive link between breast cancer and induced abortion or miscarriage.

It is important for women to receive accurate information about risk factors for breast cancer. There are steps a woman can take to reduce her risk of developing breast cancer (for example, maintaining a healthy weight) as well as important steps every woman should take to make sure that, if she does develop breast cancer, it is detected and treated as soon as possible. A complete list of risk factors and screening recommendations can be found on our website www.komen.org.

More detailed information is on our web site at www.komen.org. We invite you to review the documents there, and we thank you again for taking time to investigate our position on this issue.

Eric Winer, M.D.
Chief Scientific Advisor
Susan G. Komen for the Cure®

I'm really confused: are you so lazy that you couldn't be bothered to dig up an easily-found policy statement from SGK - from way-back in early 2009 - about it's relationship to Planned Parenthood, and that you'd rather propagate pointless half-truths, even though Catholic ethicists see absolutely nothing improper about the SGK-PP funding link at all?

Maybe if you spent less time trolling here and read factual information about topics from the source, you'd maybe have something healthy to contribute to the discussion, instead of "the politics of fear and division," which you obviously love the most. I mean, anyone who would deliberately flagellate the good people of SGK in order to bang to gong of the Pro-Life Gospel needs to pull their head out of their ass.

[Chongo]

The pastor of my parish is also the director medical ethics for the Diocese of Phoenix. From his homilies, he disagrees with Hamel and Panicola.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

St Paul said they will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

OT: I thought Christianity teaches that the promise of Jesus is forgiveness of all sins committed by those who profess to believe in Jesus. Then again the gospels have Jesus say that many who profess to believe in him aren't his true followers and won't be forgiven when push comes to shove.

I'll stop now.

[subego]

"I lost Mussolini that way, all that work, then right at the end with his last breath he says, 'Scusi. Mille regretti,' and [flap, flap, flap] up he goes!"