Calling Dr. Orwell: WaPo Tries to Help ACLU Define Abortion, Contraception as 'Reproductive Care'
Liberals have claimed that conservatives wage a war on "science," but when it comes to social liberalism, they are often at odds with scientific reality. For example, they will define a woman as "He" and a man as "She" if the person in question simply decides that's how they want to be addressed. Or, in Thursday's Washington Post, the words "reproductive care" are used, without quotes, to describe anti-reproductive actions like abortion and contraception. The ACLU is waging war on Catholic-owned hospitals, and Rob Stein began their publicity drive with this paragraph:
The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday asked federal health officials to ensure that Catholic hospitals provide emergency reproductive care to pregnant women, saying the refusal by religiously affiliated hospitals to provide abortion and other services was becoming an increasing problem.
This matches the media template, in which abortion itself is never a social "problem" -- only the lack of "access" to it is a problem. There are no "liberals" in this piece, only "reproductive health advocates," which again is a factually inaccurate adjective:
As more hospitals have been taken over by Catholic hospital chains in recent years, reproductive health advocates have become increasingly concerned that fewer medical centers will provide abortion, contraception and other reproductive services.
The hoary old phrase "birth control" is less inaccurate than calling these anti-reproductive steps "reproductive services." It's a clinical-sounding way of saying "tidying up your messy sex life."
The ACLU is furious that the Bishop of Phoenix, Thomas Olmsted, would object to abortion and sterilization and contraception being offered at a hospital defined as Catholic. They believe that Catholic-owned hospitals cannot be forced to apply Catholic church ethics in their health care. Now that the federal government through ObamaCare will have even more onerous control over hospitals, the ACLU demands that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services officially recognize that hospital owners have no rights to deny life-denying care. The Post reported they insisted in their CMS letter that "no hospital -- religious or otherwise -- should be prohibited from saving women's lives and from following federal law." Furthermore, they wrote,
"The Bishop's drastic and heavy-handed actions send a chilling message to Catholic hospitals throughout the country, as well as their employees: If hospitals comply with federal law and provide emergency abortion care there will be consequences," the letter states. "The dioceses cannot be permitted to dictate who lives and who dies in Catholic-owned hospitals."
Especially when the ACLU really wants someone to die.
Unlike the ABC News story on this subject, Stein at least forwarded Bishop Olmsted's objection that this hospital wasn't just being held accountable for one abortion, but for a whole range of ACLU-pleasing anti-reproductive services:
In announcing the decision Tuesday, Olmsted said that "subsequent communications" with hospital officials "have only eroded my confidence about their commitment to the Church's ethical and religious directives for healthcare. They have not addressed in an adequate manner the scandal caused by the abortion."
In fact, Olmsted said he had "recently learned that many other violations . . . have been taking place at" facilities operated by Catholic Healthcare West, which owns St. Joseph's, including the provision of birth-control pills and other forms of contraception, sterilizations and abortions "due to the mental or physical health of the mother or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest."
But the Post also quoted Sister Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association praising the abortion-providing hospital for "their long and stellar history in the protection of life at all stages" -- without explaining Sister Carol was a major booster of ObamaCare, regardless of its support for abortion.
The story ended with the unlabeled left-wing activist Lois Uttley of MergerWatch, a project of a group called Community Catalyst -- funded by leftists like the Open Society Institute of George Soros. Being a sexual revolutionary warring on orthodox religion never means you get called a "leftist" or even a "liberal" in the national newspapers.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Not Meaning to Sound Like a Bigot
Submitted by BW222 on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 1:08pm.
... but outside of Romano, who is a gay guy, is there any ACLU official who isn't a secular Jew?
Reporductive "don't care" is more like it.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 1:10pm.
Abortion is reproductive care? Only if you don't care if a human being dies or not!
A contraceptive is reproductive care? Only if you don't care to reproduce!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Now you see, Cobraman...
Submitted by beauxdog on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 11:28pm.
we do agree on most things.
Beauxdog
As the United States
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 1:27pm.
As the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops informed Barack Hussein Obama, the Roman Catholic Church will close and demolish all of its hospitals BEFORE being forced to perform abortions.
Leave it to the so called "open minded" Liberals to force down the throat of practicing Roman Catholics their murderous beliefs.
Abortion IS murder, period end of story.
Only pro-abortionist are crazy enough to make legal this horrific holocoust!
Pray for an end to abortion, pray that God may have Mercy upon all of us for being involved or not doing enough to end this murdering of his innocent children!
EUPHEMISMS
Submitted by iveseenitall on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 1:27pm.
Orwell would be smiling at what he predicted would happen. Look at the world today---we actually call the media JOURNALISTS--- instead of liars, hypocrites, anti-Americans, communists, socialists, ignoramuses ...
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal" (progressive)
If once you start down the dark path
Submitted by KC Mulville on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 1:33pm.
The moment healthcare was presented as a civil right, this sort of idiocy was inevitable.
Disgusting.
KC...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:34pm.
From the Post article:
http://"Consistent with our values of dignity and justice, if we are presented with a situation in which a pregnancy threatens a woman's life, our first priority is to save both patients," Hunt said. "If that is not possible, we will always save the life we can save, and that is what we did in this case. We continue to stand by that decision. . . . Morally, ethically, and legally we simply cannot stand by and let someone die whose life we might be able to save."
Setting aside the darkening path to Obamacare, do you fundamentally disagree with the above statement by St. Joseph's president, Linda Hunt? If so, in what respect?
Jer
BTW...Not that you specifically echoed Tim's point, but the Post did explicitly refer to the procedure as an "abortion".
Jer chances are that the life
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 3:36pm.
Jer chances are that the life of the mother was not in immediate danger. This is why the abortion went against the teachings of the church. Also, was Hunt revering to the values of the medical profession or the church? It's not clear to me.So, then, if the life of the
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 3:54pm.
So, then, if the life of the mother had been in immediate danger [which is what I had assumed], would the abortion have then been in compliance with Catholic teachings?
And how is "immediate danger" defined? Must certain death be just moments away before any abortive action is undertaken?
Jer
I'm using my iTouch right
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 4:17pm.
I'm using my iTouch right now, I'll do some research when I can get in my laptop and let you know what I find out regarding the Church and abortion. I will say I would assume the hospital knew the rules and knowingly broke them, as they didn't try to argue that. But we all know what happens when we assume...Lol rad
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 4:24pm.
I have to say it is remarkable how you are so accurate on that itouch. This Keyboard is way too small and would it kill Apple to give us Flash Player and a forward delete button? ;-)Hay, Jer.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 8:55pm.
Hay, Jer, the Catholic teachings are that all lives are sacred. Instead of having an abortion, the woman who's live is in danger could have the child removed in such a way that it, too, has at least a chance for survival. Abortion REMOVES that chance altogether. It's not like tubal pregnancy, where the risk to the mother is extremely high and there's no chance to save the fetus.You do understand that, right?
So, to answer your question: No, saving the life of one person doesn't justify the deliberate murder of another. I'm surprise that you don't understand this.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
CobraMan, Well said!! The
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 10:23pm.
CobraMan,
Well said!! The ends NEVER justify the means.
the duty of a doctor is to do everything within his/her power to save BOTH lives, not save one by murdering another one.
It is unethical, evil, immoral to murder one human being to save another one.
Two different issues
Submitted by KC Mulville on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 3:51pm.
There is the commitment to save life, and there's the way you go about it. I obviously agree with the commitment to save life. In this case, however, that's only part of the story.
The question in this case is how you go about it. And let me be very clear ... I wasn't in the operating room when this all happened. I don't know the details on how the procedure was performed. The hospital claims that they worked within the guidelines, and the bishop disagrees.
In Catholic moral theology, you can't directly kill someone. (Oh, you can manage it, but it won't be considered moral.) You might presume that someone will die in the end anyway, so why not just kill them and get it over with? But it isn't about who gets killed ... it's about who does the killing. You can't take that decision into your own hands. No human can. The moment you give a little on that principle, you get into a host of problems. Should a cop assassinate a mafia leader? Why not, if it will save lives? The logic is inescapable. Once you allow anyone to decide whether it "would be best" for some innocent people to die, you have no way of getting that genie back in the bottle. So Catholic theology draws a line there. In this story, it certainly comes off as a fine line. But I argue that there are strong reasons why you have to stay behind that line.
What the hospital president said is somewhat deflective. No one is criticizing the hospital for trying to save the life, so defending yourself on the grounds that WE WERE TRYING TO SAVE LIVES!!! doesn't cut it.
But I'm not going to let you off the hook that easy. What do you think? Do you think that the distinction between direct and indirect killing is valid, or do you think we're just dancing on the head of a pin?
KC...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 4:25pm.
http:// Concerning such an abortion, the Holy Father said, `To save the life of the mother is a most noble end, but the direct killing of the child as a means is not licit .'"
I believe the Catholic position on abortion to be fundamentally noble, but in cases such as this I do indeed believe the Vatican is dancing on the head of a doctrinal pin which improperly intrudes upon sound medical practice.
But, I, too, would appreciate strat's always valuable input--as is yours. I'm persuadable.
Jer
Sometimes you have to dance
Submitted by KC Mulville on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 5:53pm.
I understand the concern. But I'm still going to hold out on banning direct killing, and I do consider the distinction worthwhile. I just think that if you give on that principle at all, you can't go back, and I don't want our society going anywhere near there.
And just to throw in another distinction, remember that the baby deserves sound medical practice as much as the mother does. The doctor's obligation to save the life of the mother is matched by his similar obligation to the baby. From strictly moral terms, the mother is as dangerous to the baby as the baby is to the mother. We habitually think of the baby as "the problem" to the mother, but that's merely a matter of perspective.
Even under Roe v. Wade, this baby was past the point of viability (as I understand it). I know that Roe isn't really the absolute precedent anymore, but even so, this child was undeniably a person, in the full legal sense. His (or her) rights were as valid as the mother's.
Self-correction
Submitted by KC Mulville on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 6:22pm.
I just re-read a report about it, and the report said that the pregnancy was 11 weeks old. I had obviously misread or misunderstood the original report. Of course, I still maintain that the baby was a real person. But I was wrong about the baby being well within the legal point of viability. Sorry about that, folks ...
KC...this was the issue that kicked off our "Health Care Forum"
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 3:00pm.
I am truly sorry that all of the old content here was lost when the upgrade was made, that Forum (and the two subsequent ones) were chock full of information.
For anyone who didn't read it...it boils down to the "Conscience Clause", which allows medical providers to refuse to perform/dispense certain services/pharmaceuticals.
The Obama administration is on record as wanting to reverse the Conscience Clause (note the use of language in this article, anyone see a pattern?). I mean, why not? If they can force us to buy health insurance, they can surely force doctors to perform abortions, and of course, Catholic Hospitals to perform abortions, too.
This is very, very dangerous stuff. As fut said above, these Catholic hospitals (IIRC, they comprise 1/3 of the hospital systems in this country, dammit, I wish that forum was still active) will shut down before they allow themselves to be forced to perform procedures which they consider to be morally wrong.
Okay, I'm done...I don't have time for a huge rant today.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
A major casualty of the site
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 3:04pm.
A major casualty of the site redesign. Inexcusable.
Jer
That
Submitted by Rukus on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 3:12pm.
and now we have that God forsaken save/share box, that needs to go hang out with old comments.
Thank you, Jer
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 3:13pm.
I really miss that, being able to refer back to something on that forum.
Another user here actually referred his assistant to that forum, as she was doing a paper for school and was able to use that forum as the basis for her research.
It would have been great to have been able to just pop in a link....we had some great conversations and of course, informative links galore.
Alas....
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Your healthcare forums are
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 1:02am.
Your healthcare forums are gone?
No backing up before the upgrade?
Sad!
Health forum status...Verdict: Catastrophe
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 1:51am.
I believe there were three separate forums, and the third one survived, the first one was zapped and I'm not sure about the second one. In fact, I could be mistaken so I'm going to check on it and report back.
Jer
update: It's even more disastrous than I thought. Part II is active but all of the comments postdate the changeover. All previous comments are gone.
Part III contains a few exchanges between Blonde and myself, but I believe they were pasted in by Blonde as a preamble when she opened the forum.
Part I only has Blonde's intro and a post by strat. The remaining 510 comments were vaporized. It's a crying shame. It was the premier forum at NewsBusters and Blonde, and strat, and Par for the Course, and KC and others had put in an enormous amount of time and posted invaluable information which is now lost--unless its cached in Google somewhere.
Dang!
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 2:21am.
There goes my legacy into the ether. Maybe WikiLeaks has it. Dump that, Assange!
Thanks for checking that out and letting me know, Jer.
Well, guys
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 12:59pm.
Maybe after the first of the year I'll contact the Masthead and see what it would take to restore the info/comments in those three forums.
If it's merely a matter of programming, perhaps we can all hit the donate button a couple of times to cover the cost of getting those three Forums back.
The information there is too valuable to lose, and going forward (i.e. as Sebelius and her band of goons write the regulations, on a whim) we will need our "library" of cites.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Merry Christmas!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
We need a scapegoat.
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 11:02pm.
Can we blame Mr.Shy?
We Are The 53%
Agreed, Blonde
Submitted by KC Mulville on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 3:55pm.
I learned a lot from those discussions.
While I'm here, therefore ... stratman, any thoughts? Any other medical pros? Any hospital ethicists lurking?
Love to hear from you guys ...
KC: I commented on the
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 12:35am.
KC:
I commented on the initial thread on this topic. Your link to another article helped clarify some of the central issues involved, such as the emergent nature of the case and what exactly the hospital's leader found as corroborative in her decision to affirm the surgery.
Once the medical prognosis was accepted - only the mother has a chance for survival - then "direct vs indirect death" became the critical issue.
Let me put you on the spot
Submitted by KC Mulville on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 11:05am.
As always, this is an unfair exchange. I learn much more from you than you get from me. But, so long as you don't object to my thievery, let me press my luck. I'm going to put you on the spot.
How much moral discussion goes on in a typical hospital?
I'm curious about how the doctors feel about these moral dilemmas. Do they feel that they're involved in setting policy? Do they care? (Of course, there are some doctors who pay no attention, they just do their thing and that's what they're paid for. Mutatis mutandis ...) Do most doctors feel that these distinctions like "direct v. indirect" killing are just dances on heads of pins? Or does their medical liability force them to protect themselves and make all the dilemmas clear and out in the open? I'm curious.
My (very) limited experience is that the doctors take these issues seriously, but they deal with them so often that they don't have time to dwell on the particulars.
KC: I have thought about
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 3:22am.
KC:
I have thought about your questions and written several drafts, none of which I liked. I don't like this version either but wanted to give you an answer.
Physicians may have more training or experience in dealing with certain moral issues inherent to Medicine, but they are no different than any other group of people. Some handle situations better than others. Some welcome the input of the ethicist and some do not. It's a mixed bag. In my experience, the ethicist (and attorney) have great influence in the decision, definitely from the hospital's point of view.
Moral discussions do occur, sometimes in pieces here and there, sometimes in full blown meetings with the professional "team" or in consult with an ethicist, but many of the situations physicians come across are known entities such that the physician already has a template from which to proceed. I believe morality is the wellspring for good medical practice and ethics.
Obviously, the physician's own morals provide the basis for dealing with medical situational morality, and this is one reason for differences amongst individuals. I have found in my limited experience that ethicists will come to decisions that would be interchangeable at most any hospital, just the way you might expect physicians to practice similarly wherever they are located. Alterations from a given norm are due to our inherent differences as unique human beings and our knowledge base.
As a student and resident working in Catholic hospitals and their outpatient practices, it was understood that birth control and abortion were not acceptable practice. Yet, I saw birth control pills prescribed for preventing pregnancy by a third year resident physician (religion unknown). In order to prescribe birth control in a Catholic-based residency program there must either be institutional apathy/acceptance, resident supervisor level apathy/approval, and/or chart documentation of a different diagnosis other than requested elective pregnancy prevention medicine. The point here is that people have been skirting/ignoring Catholic mores and guidelines for years, so it's no surprise to me a hospital has run afoul of the Church.
Since I did no obstetrics in Catholic-based institutions, I never came across a moral dilemma such as this St. Joseph's abortion case. I have never been party to an abortion anywhere so I don't know what moral discussion or decision making is done by the physician(s) involved.
I know Catholic physicians who prescribe birth control. I know some of the OB-GYN's (religion unknown) I've worked under or with have done abortions though I've never participated in an abortion. It's not something one discusses in casual conversation. I cannot recall any discussions of morality and abortion except for very rare situations when one will state they will provide it/not provide it for reason X or Y. I had the impression that those who did abortions view it as both an ethical and moral duty to the patient. Like I said before, there are all types of people in Medicine, just like any other group.
To answer a couple of your other questions: 1) I do not recall discussing "direct vs indirect killing", though it may have come up somewhere at sometime; 2) individual physicians by and large do not set hospital policy unless they are on committees, a VIP (usually a big bread-earner for the hospital), or there is a financial benefit - just like any other business/corporation/institution; and 3) medical liability colorizes nearly every, if not every, patient enounter whether one is conscious of it or not at that time - medical ethicists potentially as another layer of protection against medical liability.
strat
Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 10:19am.
I didn't ask for a essay because I didn't want to steal your time, but I was delighted to see it anyway. Thanks.
Overall, it sounds eerily familiar.
The Catholic Church carries out most of its work through institutions, mostly schools and hospitals. The larger the institution, the more difficult it is to set policy that actually gets carried out. Institutions are usually untamed, bureaucratic beasts, and only a long-term, united, and effective management structure can discipline the beast. Years go, nuns were the backbone of Catholic institutions. The vow of obedience kept the "management team" united and consistent. Vatican II deliberately decided to open up the institutions to the civilians, and encourage the lay people to participate in running the institutions. It was a magnanimous idea, except that there was a good reason why they'd had a vow of obedience in the first place. That management unity is long gone now. In the old days, that managerial unity and cohesion was what gave the institutions their strong identity. Now, in many (most?) Catholic institutions, that identity is often more of a wish than any real working policy.
My second thought is that you confirmed a long held suspicion, that most everyone already knows: in professions, liability insurance is the effective disciplinarian. In almost any profession, the standard of behavior is whatever will avoid a lawsuit. That's your basic bottom line. Sure, many professionals rise above the minimum, but for the profession overall, that's the behavior enforcement mechanism.
That leads to two quick observations:
The extent of documentation
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 3:01pm.
The extent of documentation is driven by liability and insurance reimbursement. From a primary care practitioner's POV, there is oftentimes little medical need for all the documentation now required for a patient encounter.
The drive to do good medicine and not harm people originates from ethics/morals/psyche and may then be colorized by medical liability, at least in my case.
Good point about journalists and professions. I like it every time you make it. :-)
Why don't these women who
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 1:34pm.
Why don't these women who want abortions simply go to a secular hospital? I can't help but wonder if some of these cases are plants.
My prediction is that the Catholic hospitals will close before performing abortions, leaving many poor people without care.
Radical, The Roman Catholic
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 1:43pm.
Radical,
The Roman Catholic Church has already made a statement to Obama during the healthcare debate.
If the law forces Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, not only will the Roman Cahtolic Church close the doors of all of its hospitals, it will demolish the hospitals to prevent anyone else from using the buildings for abortions.
It is about time that others had this type of balls when fighting the anti-human, the pro-abortion, the pro-murderers in our society who have fooled countless of individuals into believing that abortion is somehow a good and moral thing.
The Roman Catholic Church will not be bullied by the ACLU and other pro-abortionist radicals.
Ll, as I've said before I
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 3:40pm.
Ll, as I've said before I wish they would do the same thing for the institutions of higher learning. If you say you're Catholic you must be Catholic, or close.Radical, AGREED! I live
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 10:56pm.
Radical,
AGREED!
I live in Chicago, we have DePaul, Loyola and Dominican universities which are suppose to be Roman Catholic universities. Sadly, the truth is that these universities are full of Left wing radical professors who hate the Church. Who is at fault? The Roman Catholic Church in the USA for relaxing its hiring practices when it come to hiring professors.
I went to the University of Illinois at Chicago and to Loyola University. Both of these universities taught the same radical Left wing ideologies, no difference at all.
however, my understanding is that the Pope is appointing more conservative bishops in the USA and many of these are starting to stand up to the Roman Catholic teachigns which ARE the teachings and laws of God.
What many Liberals do not realize is that the Roman Catholic Church was infiltrated by radical Left wingers. In fact, many of the priests involved in the sex scandals and the few bishops that didn't report the sex abuses were considered very Liberal in the Catholic communit and were very liberal and lax when it came to Roman Catholic teachings..
Hopefully with the more conservative bishops that are being appointed around the USA, things will change. I know that here in Chicago a delegation from the Vatican has been reviewing all the Catholic universities and high schools with the goal to report back to the Vatican and make necessary changes to bring these back to being strong and moral Roman Catholic institutions. I pray that this happens sooner rather than later.
"Why don't these women who
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 12:56am.
"Why don't these women who want abortions simply go to a secular hospital?"
It is unclear why or how this woman arrived at St. Joseph's hospital. It is unclear that anyone was suggesting abortion initially. If so, she arrived thinking about saving her baby and herself, and so were the medical staff.
Maybe her insurance steered her to that hospital. Maybe this was the hospital the ambulance was supposed to send her to based on location and medical situation. Maybe she had no insurance and this was her hospital of choice based. Maybe this is where her OB-GYN worked out of and so she felt compelled to go to physician's hospital.
Why did she stay at the Catholic hospital? It could be she came in very ill and she could not be transferred, especially if she was not functionally able to make decisions at that time. An article KCMullville linked in a different thread said the mother was in "cardiogenic shock". This is a life-threatening condition which requires immediate action, the assumption then being there was no time (and maybe no takers) for the patient to be transferred for an abortion.
I do agree that if there was time, the woman could be presented with her prognosis, treatment alternatives, and then she could knowledgeably decide based on her free will what she wanted.
This is so silly
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 1:39pm.
Regardless of a persons point of view on abortion, people should not force a hospital that is owned by Catholics to go against their values. Forcing them to provide condoms is beyond ridiculous.Well Shawn, but this is the
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 1:46pm.
Well Shawn, but this is the type of stuff that is pushed by the lobbying power of.....you guess it, that which you love to defend so much, the pornography industry.
There is no one or nothing more than the pornography industry hates more than the Roman Catholic Church, why? Because ethe Roman Catholic Church teaches the truth about pornography, it is an evil that destroys those who participate and those who watch it.
The pornography industry is heavily involved in attacking and making fun of the Roman Catholic Church.
But heck... since pornography supposedly doesn't hurt anyone, let us keep it around.
the abortion industry and the porn industry are pretty much one and the same. And if you can't see why or how they are connected...well....
Forgive me Liberallies
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 1:52pm.
The adult industry fights back against the Catholic Church because of members like yourself to make it illegal. I stand up for the personal freedom of the adult industry and the Catholic Church. " wow that's a strange sentence" ;-) Dont tell the Catholic Church how to run thir business and ditto for the adult industry.Shawn, Nice, so you are
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:10pm.
Shawn,
Nice, so you are excusing the evil and deplorable behavior of the porn industry by claiming that the Roman Catholic Church is bad for speaking the truth about pornography? LOL
Pornography needs to be made illegal because the LAST thing that the porn industry is about is personal freedom.
But I do "like it" how you put it, "the porn industry fights back.." against the Church. Since when is fighting back making fun of priest, nuns, the Pope?
but nice to know that you support an industry, the porn industry, which is HEAVILY involved in taking away the personal freedom of children in the womb of the mother.
Do you believe abortion gives personal freedom to the babies in the womb of a mother? The porn industry certainly believes that abortions should be legal. Thus, you are for some to have personal freedom and for others not to have it.
The porn industry could careless about the personal freedom of anyone, shawn.
and yes, i am aware that the porn industry attacks the Church because the Church speaks the TRUTH, that pornography is evil. But guess what, the Church is not actively involved in closing down the porn industry by making fun of it, by belittling those involved in it. By pouring billions in law suits and giving billions to organizations that are against it. You and I both know that the same can't be said of the porn industry!
The Church speaks the Truth and prays foro all sinners. Is this what you claim to be so bad from the church? Do you want to compare the actions of the Church against pornography versus the actions of the porn industry against the Church?
You can't be serious....
Sorry LL
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:11pm.
You are totally derailing the topic. This is about the ACLU, no the adult industry. I agree with what Mr. Graham is saying and you are trying to make this about something it is not.
Shawn, Nice to know you
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:14pm.
Shawn,
Nice to know you can't answer the facts.
Of course it is about this. The porn industry is as guilty about abortion being legal and being pushed on Roman Catholic hospitals as the ACLU and other pro-abortionist groups.
The ACLU and the porn industry are one and the same disease to our culture, to our children, to our families, to men and women.
I am not derailing anything, Shawn. Just pointing out the facts and how YOU support an industry which is heavily involved in what you condemn the ACLU for doing!
26cx's Free Translation Service
Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:15pm.
When Shawn says:
"You are totally derailing the topic."
What he means is;
"You are totally cleaning my clock here and I can't come up with a good defense."
OK 26cx lets do this
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:19pm.
You have been piggy backing on other peoples comments to me lately and I am getting sick of it.
Okay then 26CX. I told you in my policing morality forum that I enjoy talking about this topic, but I rarely bring this up unless I create the forum or the forum topic is on topic.
Please tell me what the adult industry have to do with the ACLU wanting to demand this hospital demand abortions and condoms? Pretty please?
Shawn, Oh now, you don't
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:25pm.
Shawn,
Oh now, you don't get away with it that easy!
You are screaming about personal freedom. I guess you are clueless to how heavily involved the porn industry is in pushing for abortions to be legal and be performed by all hospitals and on demand.
C'mon Shawn, does your logic fail you so much? What would happen if a woman that is giving billions to the industry gets pregnant and can't do anythinig for over 9 months? how many millions will the industry loose?
do you believe that the porn industry cares about its workers over the money it brings them? don't tell me you are naive enough to believe this!
oh and you may want to look into the donations of the porn industry to the ACLU! start there.
You brought personal freedom. It has been proven to you that the porn industry could careless about personal freedom. That they could careless about the personal freedom of children in the womb of the mother and you refuse to acknowledge as much.
Shawn, face the truth for once. The industry which you love to defend is evil in more ways the one. I am unsure why you blind yourself to this fact.
If you are going to scream about personal freedom, make sure that the industry you are defending also stands up for the personal freedom of everyone and the porn industry could careless about YOUR personal freedom or that of children in the womb of a mother.
I have to go to a meeting...so don't think my lack of response is that I am ignoring you. I will be back much later in the evening.
No problem fut
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:27pm.
Respond to me in my Policing Morality part two thread and I promise I will reply. Have a great day.
Whoa!
Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:32pm.
Is this supposed to be a coherent sentence?
"Please tell me what the adult industry have to do with the ACLU wanting to demand this hospital demand abortions and condoms?"
If you enjoy talking about this so much, why don't you go to a site that does a better job of catering to your prurient interests?
Your not answering the question
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:35pm.
I am also sorry about typing has and not have. What does this topic have to do with porn sir?
Well, Shawn,
Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:50pm.
I think you kind of set the tone for the topic involving porn when you wrote:
"The adult industry fights back against the Catholic Church because of members like yourself to make it illegal. I stand up for the personal freedom of the adult industry and the Catholic Church. " wow that's a strange sentence" ;-) Dont tell the Catholic Church how to run thir business and ditto for the adult industry."
Does that ring a bell?
Also, When you wrote "Please tell me what the adult industry have to do with the ACLU wanting to demand this hospital demand abortions and condoms?" did you mean to say "...to demand this hospital provide abortions and condoms?" There's a big difference, you know.
26CX...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:57pm.
Shawn didn't introduce the porn industry topic to this thread. Please don't imply that he did.
Jer
Yeah Jer
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 3:38pm.
He kind of baffles me. He piggie backed on a thread of mine last week and told me take the restof the day off for my own safety and today he is telling to leave the website and go elsewhere if I want to talk about what I like I wonder what is bringing out this far left anger.Shawn
Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 5:08pm.
You're only telling part of the story here, bud. The reason I suggested you stop what you were doing on your adult porn thread is because Bru was about to take your head off and I was trying to help you out. In fact, I tried to help you out a couple of times but you weren't listening to reason.
And exactly what I said about going elsewhere was "If you enjoy talking about this so much, why don't you go to a site that does a better job of catering to your prurient interests?" Does that sound like telling you to leave, or does it sound like a suggestion?
And far left anger? LOL!!!! If I were experiencing far left anger I would be calling you a racist and demanding that you be banned from NB. Not even close, cowboy!
I appreciate your help 26cx
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 6:07pm.
However if you consider a littany of profanities as taking my head off then I disagree. Interesting that when the poster told you it was too late, you replied with you were going to get your popcorn ready. Sorry, but admitting to something I did not do does not sound like reason to me. you are a new poster and I do not want to get off on the wrong foot. Let me tell you about myself. Personal freedom protection from both the left and right is my favorite topic, I am a terrible speller, I will always try to stay on topic and not derail a thread, and my biggest pet peeves are when people answer questions with more questions or people that name call because they are losing. I am not saying I do not namecall, but only as last resort. Anyways 26, if you have an issue with me please address me directly. I am not the type to post and run. Welcome to Newsbusters. EditWell, thanks, Shawn.
Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 6:18pm.
I appreciate the information.
Don't assume that because I'm a "new poster" I am not familiar with NB and the personalities who post here.
Merry Christmas.
Merry Christmas CX
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 6:23pm.
How long did you read the site before you joined?Hey, Jer
Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 3:54pm.
I see you got stuck with being the NB proctor today...
Merry Christmas!
Just following in the
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 3:59pm.
Just following in the master's footsteps:
http://#24 26cx's Free Translation Service
Merry Christmas...
Jer
I just quickly explained my position
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 3:03pm.
Fut asked a question and I gave him a quick answer about why I defend both which is relevant. Fut then went on to specifics about the porn industry which has nothing to do with the topic26CX, Yeap, anyone that
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:19pm.
26CX,
Yeap, anyone that defends the porn industry does not have the TRUTH on their side.
I know Shawn is being sincere and honest, but I am always amazed how he can't see the huge, and I do mean HUGE holes in his pro-porn industry logic.
The porn industry is as involved as the ACLU in pushing abortions on everyone and that they be done by ALL hospitals regardless of their religious affiliation or lack there off.
Shawn just finished condemning the ACLU for doing this, yet he just finished defending the porn industry which does exactly the same thing as the ACLU!
Fut buddy
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:26pm.
I know you have been trying to get me to debate you about the porn industry for some time now and I have backed down because I tell you that you are too good for me and I am not on your intellectual level.
However, Mr 26CX has been itching to pick a fight with me for a while now, and since he is a pretty new member, I am curious on what his problem is with me.
If you stay out of my debate with him, If you really really really want to continue our debates that go nowhere about the adult industry you can respond on my morality police part two thread and I promise I will respond.
And Shawn... Nothing on
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:17pm.
And Shawn...
Nothing on that personal freedom that you cherish so much being taken away from children who are in the womb of the mother by the actions and donations of the porn industry, eh?
weren't you just screaming personal freedom?
I guess you only believe in personal freedom when it protects the porn industry.
LIberallies
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:21pm.
Abortion is a topic I rarely rarely talk about. I am not a fan of abortion, and I stated that I think it is ridiculous that people are forcing the Catholic Church to do something that goes against their religion.
You are trying to make it look like I support abortion when I have said nothing of the kind.
Shawn, You don't support
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:28pm.
Shawn,
You don't support abortion. We agree on this.
But you defend and support an industry that is 100% FOR abortion, the porn industry.
If you are against abortion, then why do you support the porn industry which is for abortion?
If you support personal freedom, why do you defend and support an industry that is against personal freedom? the porn industry.
this is what is completly illogical to me.
Sorry if I am coming on so strong, but abortion and porn are two of the things I deplore the most because they cause so much harm to innocent souls. People are used and abused by both of these industries which could careless about personal freedom.
anyway, as I said above, I am off to a meeting, back late in the evening.
I apologize if you feel attacked.
The adult industry fights
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 6:32pm.
The adult industry fights back against the Catholic Church because of members like yourself to make it illegal. I stand up for the personal freedom of the adult industry and the Catholic Church. " wow that's a strange sentence" ;-) Dont tell the Catholic Church how to run thir business and ditto for the adult industry.
Hey, shawn.
Since the 60s the Catholic Church has had no type of sweeping power in US politics to ban pornography. Most of the culture war battles since the 60s have been caused by left-wing political forces trying to beat up on the right-wing.
Jerry Falwell only became a household name because Larry Flynt used his porn rag to trash him, and they went to court over a libel charge. Of course, he became an easy punching bag and strawman for people who wanted to push their politics forward.
People have to stop worrying about the religious right. Your porn magazines are safe, nobody is taking them from you.
I agree redfish
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 6:36pm.
They have no power over this matter at all. If they were a threat or even actually remotely relevant in obsenity laws I might actually be worried. Don't forget, I did not bring this up, I just merely answered another posters question.The bigger point is that the
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 7:23pm.
The bigger point is that the Catholic Church shouldn't be blamed for the politics of the porn industry. They don't have enough political power or social influence today to blame them for anything, and they haven't since the 60s.
The idea of a 'Christian right' that's waiting in the wings to turn the country into a theocracy has been a strawman for left-wing politics for years. There are certainly people who believe in the most extreme versions of conservative arguments, but over the past 50 years they've generally been pushing for the middle ground. Pro-life advocates fought against late term abortion, against procedures like partial birth abortion, for parental notification laws, etc... There have also been conservative groups for decades lobbying in favor of variations on civil union laws.
The politics of the porn industry, and the ACLU in this instance, just has to do with self-righteousness, and nothing else. Certain people just don't like it that other points of view exist. The problem is they still don't get as much scrutiny, even with Fox News, as do conservatives.
I think it has alot to do with people too
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 7:26pm.
Take Liberallies for example. He is strongly opposed for the adult industry and against condom use and believes even having maritial sexual relations is selfish unless there is a chance of pro creation.
I don't blame them, I just hope that they will always stay irrelivant when it comes to FCC guidelines because the freedoms we enjoy now would be very different if the RCC had their way.
There are also people who
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 7:58pm.
There are also people who want to hand out condoms at schools, teach school children about fetishes, instruct them on how to masturbate as a way to have them avoid casual sex, argue that if you're celibate you're going to warp into a pedophile and molest children (just like those evil Catholic priests), and that sex is the most important thing in life.
The question is why there is so much obession over people with the pov of Liberallies. Guess what pov has a larger number of people that agree with it?
I may not agree with him, but I think people have a real misunderstanding of sex and sexuality when they treat it as something either 1. important to life, or 2. as harmless fun.
I have no idea what Liberallies has said, but in my understanding, whatever moral issues there are with sex before marriage are there when you are married. Marriage isn't some magic wand. Choosing not to have sex is an issue of having some amount of respect for yourself, the right values about life, and self-discipline about maintaining that. Just like you want to learn to control your eating habits when eating fatty stuff like chocolate cake, you'll want to learn to control your eating habits when eating healthy things like carrots. It doesn't matter that carrots are healthy, you still have to learn to be happy without eating them, and live up to that. Likewise, if you marry someone just to have sex with them 6 times a day, with the plan that you'll divorce 2 years later, what is that marriage worth?
Being married is one thing, having that marriage actually mean something is another. People have to learn to be happy without having sex first.
redfish
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 7:58pm.
I believe the liberals outlook is as dangerous if not more dangerous than LL. They want to have abortion on demand at high schools, are totally against any religion except for Islam and want to hand out condoms at school.
Trust me I am not blind to the evils of Liberals and their agenda, NB has taught me that.
So all I'm just asking is --
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 8:50pm.
So all I'm just asking is -- if you agree there are extreme views on the other side also -- why does everyone give social conservatives so much attention?
I think its just popular to hate socons. The other side doesn't get enough scrutiny.
I would say the media has alot to do with it
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 8:52pm.
However, I have a feeling if the GOP did not have to pander to social conservatives on their campaign with their lip service, I have a feeling the msm would have less ammo to work with.
I think we're at the point
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 9:33pm.
I think we're at the point where people who have only moderate conservative views are called extreme, and even when a conservative is right about an issue they're trashed. (like Christine O'Donnell on the first amendment).
I think pushback needs to be more on the media than on socons.
A lot of issues are not even properly understood because we don't really have a balanced debate between left and right anymore. Fox News is all well and good, but the commentators there have mostly caved on any discussion of social issues. Glenn Beck talks about God a lot but avoids abortion and gay marriage.
Shawn, shawn....where to
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 10:45pm.
Shawn, shawn....where to begin with you.
Are you seriously comparing the Liberals teaching kindergarten kids homosexual sex acts to the Roman Catholic Church teachings?
so, us RCC are dangerous? dude you are wacked, truly wacked!
Neither I nor the Roman Catholic Church is looking to take away your porn stash. We speak the Truth, we tell you that your porn tash is sinful and YOU do not like to hear that and make up a bunch of other things up.
When the heck did I ever write that I was for people being forced to do anything that went against the FREE WILL that God gave us all? cite blog, time and date! If you can't retrack your big lie.
The problem people have with teh Roman Catholic Church is that it will straight forward say what is Right and Wrong, Moral and Immoral and people today are too proud to want to hear the TRUTH about their deplorable behavior. However, the Church is not for you being forced into any type of behavior. Can you say the same about Liberals who want your children to learn about sex, all types of sex, since they are in kindergarten? No you cannot!
The Roman Catholic Church is huge, huge on pesonal freedom and Free Will. however, the Church is clear that if you misuse these, they will lead you to sin and eventually to Hell.
Individuals like you do not want to hear that pornography leads to Hell. This is a fact of life. The Church is NOT condemning, it is NOT forcing you to stop watching pornography, but it will clearly state the evil you are involved in. Individuals like you do not like this and you will lie and make things up about the RCC and Roman Catholics who state the Truth.
But as I said, I have NEVER once said that those who are FREELY involved in pornography should be forced into any type of behavior.
I just shake my head at individuals like you who claim to be for personal freedom yet support the porn industry which is NOT for personal freedom. You attacked the ACLU which is full of funds from....the porn industry which you love to support.
the saddest part of this all is that you truly believe that watching pornography is about personal freedom and Free Will. you are so blind to the fact that pornography is about slaving human nature to the most animalistic behavior of humanity. You fail to see that the porn industry taps into an animal instinct that enslaves people and takes away their personal freedom!!! but heck if that is what you want for yourself, I am no one to force you to do otherwise! But I will not shut-up in order for you to feel good about your porn stash.
Before you attack the Roman Catholic Church, please get to know its teachings and do not slander Her. We have enough Far Right Fundamentalist on this site who attack the RCC from the Radical Right, attempt to not do teh same from the lies spewed by the Radical Left.
Fut
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 10:56pm.
I think there is some miscommunication here. I said if The RCC controlled laws in this country It would be different. I also said if people like you that want to outlaw adult movies had more influence with the FCC I would be concerned but thankful you do not.On a side issue...
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 11:03pm.
On a side issue... protestants have always been more extreme on politics than Catholics. Remember protestants supported Prohibition while Catholics were against it.
The times we live in......
Submitted by Herbster on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:07pm.
Let's see............carrots and arugula for the kids' school lunches...served, I hope, by unionized lunch ladies. "It's for the children!" On the other hand, lets abort 'em as part of "Reproductive freedom." Are the second, third and fourth abortions also "Reproductive freedom?" Abortion is murder - plain and simple. However, to the liberal (Progressive) mindset, abortion on a grand scale would allow the carrot and arugula community to thrive. A wonderful trade off. We live in VERY dangerous times. People need to wake up. It can't happen here? Sorry, it already has!
Herbester, Well said. We
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:12pm.
Herbester,
Well said.
We are living through a holocoust which is much worse than anything that the Nazis did to the Jews.
Nazi's and Jews?*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:32pm.
This article does make that argument sound very similiar doesnt it?
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/
→ Nazi abortion factor
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:41pm.
The trick for Liberals was to convince Black Americans that they are incapable of controlling their sexual lusts.
From there it was just a matter of providing enough white liberal doctors to capitalize on the phenomenon.
Exactly Cool*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 3:00pm.
Since Roe vs. Wade, there has been a 25% reduction in the black population in this country. Abortion sold by ACLU and Planned Parenthood as a "right of choice". These are the true racists in this country and a story no one wants told.
Hey-it's just a personal choice...
Submitted by jimbo297 on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 4:01pm.
...until it affects the demographics of a country. Then it is called genocide.
cajun2...."planned parenthood"...
Submitted by ww thumper on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 6:30pm.
They are not planning "Parenthood" in their clinics, they are planning BABY MURDER!.....then they DO IT!!
The only reason Planned Baby Murder offices are there is to Murder Babies! .... no other reason .... there is no "parenthood" being planned there!! :-( ! WW
MY PASTOR SAYS "GOD BLESS AMERICA"!!!I ASK " GOD SAVE AMERICA, AND RESTORE OUR AMERICAN HONOR!"
cajun...gotta violate the numbers moratorium for a minute
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 9:32pm.
Where did you find that statistic?. At the time of Roe v. Wade, there were maybe 25 million blacks in the US. Now, there are probably in excess of 40 million.
Jer
That's probably
Submitted by MightyMouth on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 9:38pm.
25% less created or saved blacks. If the Dems can use that logic, so can we.
Good grief, Mr. Mouth...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 9:44pm.
At least my "they do it too" arguments make sense. :-)
Jer
No need to be so formal Jer
Submitted by MightyMouth on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 10:15pm.
You can call me Mighty.
And there is at least one undeniable fact about Roe v. Wade: There are millions of humans NOT walking around alive because of that travisty of a law. Now that's a two edged sword as far as liberals go: There are millions they CANT tax, but also millions they don't have to feed and clothe. If you don't think liberals look at human beings in that way you are either naive or... more likely.. one of 'em.
I would, MM... but "Mighty"
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 12:29am.
I would, MM...
but "Mighty" has been the pet name my wife has called me ever since our honeymoon, and I don't want to cause any undue confusion in the event she should occasionally scan the threads. So, for now, it must remain Mighty Mouth, MM, or Mr. Mouth.
With respect to the balance of your post--at least the part about the atitutude of liberals--it's too close to Christmas to poke at that hornet's nest, other than to observe that what you are saying is unadulterated hogwash.
Have I personally wished you Merry Christmas, yet? If not, I am now.
Jer
Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 10:22pm.
This link was one of the articles I read. Did not book mark the other but I believe it was the Fredrick Douglas Group having done a study on the effect of abortions and poverty on the black population. Abortion and lower birth rates contradict an otherwise expected population 25% greater than now. Of the 40 million blacks estimated, 3 million are immigrants. These statistics have been of great concern to black groups who know they are rapidly becoming a greater minority to Latinos and Asians.
http://www.theroot.com/views/portrait-black-america-eve-2010-census
The ever changing demographics and Politics bring concern for these groups Christian and conservative, trying to bring the focus on the serious problems in the black community other than the current strawman of entitlements. Groups that are interested in making lasting changes rather than the current trend of money routed to slum lords, Planned Parenthood, and other "race baiting" organizations.
http://www.frederickdouglassfoundation.com/Blackgenocide.html
These organizations interest me because of my past professional association with black families. There are many problems facing them in todays society and people like Al Sharpton distort the arguments of "bigotry" which results in very little changes in the major problems they face.
cajun... I'll take a look
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 12:47am.
cajun...
I'll take a look at this in greater depth tomorrow. I am a bit surprised at the 2008 estimation of blacks/African Americans [37.1mil], which is only roughly 500,000 more than documented in the 2000 census. Assuming accurate data, that represents an exceedingly slow growth rate.
I'm sure you're familiar with my frequent acknowledgement of and distress over the long-standing "race-baiting" phenomenology plaguing America. But, I reject the notion that Planned Parenthood is part of it. Since I have no doubt of the firmness of your conviction to the contrary, that issue will probably result in the customary "agreement to disagree:".
Later,
Jer
Jerster*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 2:23am.
"Agree to Disagree" is acceptable parameters within our "accord". No penalties will ensue. I used planned parenthood to keep from listing many other agencies and institutions, I could mention Support Enforcement, Public Housing, Food Stamps, Welfare, SSI, Dept of Educ, Affirmative Action and many other agencies and ideologies regarding their policies and regulations that actually are harmful to the very people they should be helping.
The issue of black society and poverty in this country is a very complex one not easily discussed in this forum. Please look up Dr Janice Shaw Crouse and also review the Fredrick Douglass Foundation. Bill Cosby, Herman Caine , Doneen Borelli and Starr Parker also have all written great articles over the years over these same issues. Also you might want to look up an NB contributor by the name of Walter Williams.
Notice the lack of numbers in my post. I wanted no "relapse" of symptoms so that the Jerster can enjoy a brief respite from the stresses of the world and have a Very Merry Christmas.
Liberals change terminology
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:23pm.
Liberals change terminology to make the objectionably sound more palatable. That's why they wish to be known as "progressives." Doesn't change the substance but attempts to give a positive appearance. After all, liberals tend to be style over substance.
Altered state of reality
Submitted by ForeverOnTheRight on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:26pm.
Liberals have to distort reality to fit their altered state of reality. They twist,spin and bald-face lie about reality in order to avoid facts and reality. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Separation of church and state?
Submitted by Model850 on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:31pm.
Couldn't the government forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions be construed as government interference in the free exercise of religion?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
I'm not a lawyer so I'm just wondering.
Are you there 26CX?
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:34pm.
is this one of your usual post and runs or you actually going to back up your points this time? How did LL clean my clock?
Here, Shawn,
Submitted by 26CX on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:38pm.
I'll answer your question with your own words to LL:
I know you have been trying to get me to debate you about the porn industry for some time now and I have backed down because I tell you that you are too good for me and I am not on your intellectual level.
Remember writing that?
No 26cx
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 2:57pm.
I said that after your comment. Fut also knows I said that because I feel usually our conversations go nowhere you feel he cleaned my clock by bringing up up the adult industry?The Eduard Wirths, Aribert
Submitted by tominhouston on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 3:21pm.
The Eduard Wirths, Aribert Hiems' Carl Vaenets, and Josef Mengeles and their supporters of today spin it, excuse it and discuss abortion with everybody except the baby. When that comes up they say that the baby can't offer an opinion. Hello, that's the point! Regardless of the subject of debate in our society, don't we generally try to obtain input from all of the parties involved?
The present and the 1930's in Germany
Submitted by Herbster on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 3:40pm.
The comparison of today to the 1930's is is totally relevant. Today: We lead the world in culture - albeit a low type, we have a government interested only in attaining more power. We have a government led by a ideologue. We kill babies - and soon, with "Medical reform," "End of life choices" will be enforced by the state. We have a population deserting faith and looking to the state for sustenance. We live in a pseudo divided society fueled by government and media propaganda - rich vs. poor, etc. We have a corrupt media. Our schools are state (Union) controlled. Our government is slowly nationalizing all industry. These are just the highlights. In the 30's, Germany was the cultural center of the world. literature, art, music. The finest medical care in the world was in Germany. Yet, slowly with the "Election" of one man, (As in our country today) everything changed. People saw what was happening, but turned a blind eye. "It can't happen here" was the mantra. Book burnings, persecution, concentration camps. We of comfortable lives today say, "It can't happen HERE!" Wrong. It can happen anywhere. Look around, friends. Read between the lines of propaganda in the papers and on TV. The signs of the 30's are all around us. We need to wake up....
There wasn't even pretense
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 5:47pm.
There wasn't even pretense that Hitler was elected; Hitler lost the Presidential election to Paul von Hindenberg, who later appointed him as Chancellor. The Nazi party didn't even control the majority of the government, it was a coalition government, and Hindenberg appointed Hitler because he thought he could be controlled. The second largest party in the parliament was the Communist Party, and the third largest party was the Social Democrats.
Also Naziism was essentially a reactionary movement (not progressive, as Mr. Beck says, though it was socialist -- it was a kind of right-wing socialism). During the 20s there were many anarchist and communist uprisings, and because the German government couldn't control them, the Freikorps, right wing paramilitaries, started to gain power. Bavaria was turned into a Soviet Republic and the Ruhr region was taken over, and these revolutions were only put down by the Freikorps. When Hitler came to power, as I mentioned, the second largest force to the Nazi party was the Communist party. Essentially, the Nazis succeeded because Communists were the only other option.
Also its debatable that by the 30s that Germany was a center of art, literature, and music. Certainly the Nazis didn't think so -- they rejected the art that was being created at the time as 'decadent' and ugly. But part of the reason Nazis were able to get some amount of public support they did was because a lot of the rest of society was repelled by much of modern art, a lot of which had very left-wing political motives.
Just saying, there are a lot of myths about what was going on in the 30s.... A lot of it by left-wing politicians claiming that elites ruling everybody is good, because if the people had what they wanted, individuals like Hitler would be elected.... I wish conservatives would realize this instead of recycling the myths.
The rationale is that
Submitted by GrannyGrump42 on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 5:52pm.
The rationale is that abortion and contraception are "reproductive health care" because they involve the reproductive organs. Which makes as much sense as calling the gas chamber a "respiratory care facility".
"To save the mother's life."
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 9:14pm.
You know, it's ironic that abortion supporters often refer to the "to save a woman;'s life" argument while forgetting that, for the vast majority of human history, many women died during childbirth. 100 years ago, it was common for a woman to DIE during childbirth, yet the "fetus,"that "lump of tissue,"' that "unwanted" baby, was never to blame. The death of the woman was mourned, of course, but the life that was produced, the child's, was seen as a miracle. The woman herself, having died during childbirth, was seen as noble. She was regarded as a hero. She gave up her own life in exchange for the life of her child. No other human act, no other human action, was held in higher reward than giving up one's own life for a child, ANY child. That's how important children used to be in our society.
Today, it's just the opposite, at least for the supporters of abortion. The "modern" miracle is the death of the child in exchange for the life, or well-being, of the woman. Today, it's the dead baby that is noble, that child who was sacrificed at the abortion clinic for the sake of the mother's emotional or physical well-being (or even for their own sake as they could be, you know, POOR!). What does that say about our society? It tells me that we hold death in a higher regard than life itself. Is that really the type of "progressive" attitude that is benefiting us?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH----->
Submitted by Samshile on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 11:09pm.
DEVIATE