How Partisan Should The Pro-Life Movement Be?

How Partisan Should The Pro-Life Movement Be? August 26, 2014

1024px-March_for_Life,_Washington,_D.C._(2013)

At the tail end of an excellent post explaining why it’s perfectly consistent for pro-lifers to say “abortion is murder” and not want to guillotine anyone who procures abortions, my good friend Noah Millman makes the frequently-heard point that the American pro-life movement is corrupted by its coeval relationship with the Republican Party:

To me, the story [Noah’s post riffs off of] says little about the sincerity of the beliefs of those who oppose abortion. It says a great deal, though, about the corrupting effects of partisan politics on moral crusades, something I’ve harped on before in this space. I really, really do believe that the more seriously you take the proposition that abortion is categorically immoral, the more morally imperative it is for you not to hitch your wagon to the star of either political party. Nothing is more corrupting of the anti-abortion cause than its subsumption into a culture war that is fundamentally – fundamentally – about making it easier for politicians to get re-elected.

This is a point that is often heard, and for which I have a tremendous amount of sympathy. I am a supporter of the Republican Party, but this “allegiance” takes a far, far seat behind my allegiances to the pro-life cause and, more generally, Christianity itself. It is true that partisan politics is inevitably corrupting (the question is to what extent, and what amount is tolerable). It is true, furthermore, that as a matter of brute political strategy, the worst thing for an interest group (which is what the pro-life movement is) is to be able to be taken for granted by a political party. Those interest groups that get parties to bend over backwards for them are those that have a foot in both parties, and can swing either way (thereby deciding elections). If group X feels that it has no choice but to vote for party A (and party A knows it), then party A really doesn’t have to do anything for group X. (cc: African-Americans, but this is another topic)

And finally, yes, there is something not only instrumentally but fundamentally shocking about the pro-life movement, whose cause is righteous and holy, functioning, in the end, as a machine for getting politicians reelected.

So, again, Millman’s critique is one for which I have tremendous sympathy.

But with all that being said, there are some points which seem to me unavoidable, and which critiques along Millman’s line almost never mention, let alone take into account. To me, these points don’t necessarily vitiate the critique, but I do wish those who make the critique would take them into account. They are the following:

In the United States, abortion policy is decided by the Supreme Court. In 1973, five seven Justices of the United States Supreme Court decided, with absolutely no basis in American constitutional law, that abortion-on-demand at any point in the pregnancy was a constitutional right. All of our debates really happen in the tiny shadows of this massive elephant-in-the-room. The job of any movement that would seek to reverse this status quo, if only to return the issue to the democratic process, therefore, is not to cobble together some coalition in Congress; it is, rather, to get the right justices appointed to the Supreme Court. In the case where your job as an interest group is to get a coalition together in Congress, bipartisanship is a feature and not a bug. In the case where your job is to get judges appointed, and given the political realities of the United States, where committed pro-lifers are a plurality but not a majority of voters, it is hard for me to see a viable strategy for the pro-life movement that looks anything other than this: (a) become strong enough in one party that it will nominate pro-lifers; (b) get pro-life Presidential candidates elected; (c) get good justices on the Court. This strategy has been enormously frustrating (there are five Republican-appointed Justices on the Court, and Roe is still the law of the land), but it is hard for me to see an alternative. In any case, any critique of the partisanship of the pro-life movement, though most welcome, nonetheless has, I think, to take this reality into account.

The story of the pro-life movement and partisanship is the story of pro-lifers pushed out of one party. In the conventional story of the pro-life movement and the Republican Party, the story is relatively straightforward: incensed by Roe, pro-lifers and Evangelicals launched a takeover of the already (mildly) conservative GOP in order to take over the US government and fix everything. But this isn’t the story, or rather, it’s only the second half of the story. The first half of the story is that the Democratic Party, seeing affluent social liberals and women (missing the fact that women are more pro-life than men, but this is another story) as key to its new coalition following the breakup of the old New Deal coalition, became absolutist in its pro-abortion positions. The story of Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson’s notorious flip-flops on abortion is well-known. As is Mario Cuomo’s infamously astonishing “personally opposed” speech. As is the exclusion of Bob Casey, a popular governor of a major swing state, from the platform at the Democratic National Convention. The story of pro-life partisanship, then, is, at the very least, as much a story of the pro-life movement being driven out of one major party as it is one of the pro-life movement tying itself to the mast of another party. Pro-choicers have always been much more at home in the Republican Party than pro-lifers have been in the Democratic Party (especially actual pro-lifers, and not Democrats who call themselves pro-life and vote with the pro-choice lobby on most issues, like e.g. Harry Reid, Bob Casey Jr, et al.). While no one denies that polarization has increased in American politics of late, it is still impossible to swing a cat through a roomful of Republican operatives without finding a dozen who will say (absurdly) that the GOP’s ticket to victory is jettisoning the pro-life platform, nor is any journalistic story on the GOP’s travails complete without on-background quotes from senior Republicans to that effect. How many senior Democrats are going around saying that if only the Democrats went pro-life, they’d win a permanent majority? (Which is actually a much more cogent case politically than the case for a pro-choice GOP.) Any critique of the partisanship of the pro-life movement should have some notion of how to fix the Democratic Party’s unremitting hostility to the pro-life cause. Which brings us to…

The Democratic Party’s moves (such as they were) towards the pro-life movement were the result of conservative victories. The only times when the Democratic Party broke (however symbolically) with its pro-abortion orthodoxy were moments when social conservatism were seen as dominant in American politics. They were Bill Clinton’s “safe, legal and rare” lines, and the DNC and DCCC’s efforts in the 2004 and 2006 election cycles to recruit explicitly pro-life (or, “pro-life”) candidates. Whatever their merits, these moves all proceeded from the same logic: the pro-life coalition had delivered serious victories to the Republican Party (or, more accurately, the dogmatism of the Democratic Party’s support for abortion had turned off too many crucial moderate voters), and the Democratic Party had to change to reflect that. Political parties, like other bureaucracies ruled by self-interest, only change when they experience failure. Even though it would be in a foe’s self-interest to make peace without war, human nature is such that all too often the foe will only come to the negotiating table after having been defeated. For very obvious reasons, I would very much like for the pro-life movement to find a “second home” within the Democratic Party. But history, at the very least, seems to strongly suggest that the best way for that to happen is for the pro-life-GOP alliance to win decisive electoral victories.

Again, I have tremendous personal sympathy for critiques of the partisanship of the pro-life movement. My allegiance is to the pro-life movement first, and the Republican Party second. It is precisely because I want such critiques to be as strong as they can be that I wish they took these points into account.

Photo by Miss.Monica.Elizabeth (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Two points I’d like to make. (1) The natural inclination of the Republican Party is to be Libertarian. So pro-choicers should feel more comfortable there, and you can see how historically they once gravitated there. And you still find a good number of Republicans who are pro-abort as I like to call it. (2) The Democratic Party almost to a man hs become pro-abortion. And not just pro-abortion, but visciously hostile to any whiff of pro-life sentiment. There are almost no – none – pro-life Democrats around any more. So is it surprising that over the last twenty-five years the pro-lifers have found a home in the Republican Party? So I completely reject Noah Millman’s claim that it’s a “corrupt, coeval relationship.” It’s a relationship of neccessity. I have maintained that if the Democrats were to moderate their views on abortion and have half of their politicians be pro-life, the natural tendency of devout Catholics would be to gravitate toward the Democrats. And i’m a life long Republican based on a number of issues, not just this one.

    • All fair points. Thank you for your comment.

    • Sven2547

      The natural inclination of the Republican Party is to be Libertarian.

      If that were the case, I would expect broader Republican support for the obviously libertarian cause of marriage equality, for example.

      The Democratic Party almost to a man has become pro-abortion.

      What a strange misnomer, “pro-abortion”. Question: when a woman chooses to keep her pregnancy and give birth, do you think the so-called “pro-abortion” crowd disagrees with her?

      • Not a misnomer at all. If you’re for allowing something to be legal, then you are for it, no matter what your personal decisions are. You are for pot legalization if you want to allow it even though you personally woulldn’t smoke it. Yes, if you want to allow abortion then you are pro-abortion, despite your personal feelings.

        • Sven2547

          I believe I asked you a question.

          • “Question: when a woman chooses to keep her pregnancy and give birth, do you think the so-called “pro-abortion” crowd disagrees with her?”
            Irrelevant. Support of the legality of abortion as I demonstrated above.linguistically is pro-abortion, despite personal views.

          • Sven2547

            You refuse to answer the question so I’ll answer it for you:
            NO, the so-called “pro-abortion” crowd does not oppose her choice to keep the baby. That’s because the entire point is, always has been, and always will be, that women should be allowed to make her own choice on the matter. To insist on using the term “pro-abortion” is to demonstrate that you do not understand, nor intend to understand, what the discussion is even about.

          • Ridiculous. You keep bringing up the irrelevant as if that proves anything. It proves nothing. A choice of murder is not a choice. You can’t resolve the linguistic issue (ie, you lost the argument of why pro-choice is pro-abort) and therefore you harp on the irrelevant. Goodbye.

          • Sven2547

            I fail to see how explaining the entire focus of a movement is “irrelevant” here.

            I suppose you wouldn’t mind if I started calling the “pro-life” movement the “forced-birth” movement? After all, you support legislation that would force all pregnant women to give live birth*, regardless of their consent, their age, or even whether they intended to become pregnant in the first place.

            * Some would grant certain rare life-saving exceptions. Others oppose even those exceptions, insisting that pregnant women must give live birth or die trying.

          • oregon nurse

            Why is it that the only choice that seems relevant to the “pro-choice” crowd is the choice that’s made after pregnancy? Why is it women (and their partners) are never held accountable for the choice they made to have sex, knowing it can lead to pregnancy? I’d say if you are pro-choice, that’s the choice you should be focused on.

            Abortion is less about choice than about escaping the consequences of an earlier freely made choice to have sex, when the option to choose was still wide open and didn’t involve killing another person.

          • Sven2547

            Why is it that the only choice that seems relevant to the “pro-choice” crowd is the choice that’s made after pregnancy?

            Far from. The pro-choice movement also advocates contraceptives and comprehensive sex-education… things many (but not all) of the “pro-life” movement are against as well, Catholics in particular. Indeed, these things reduce the number of abortions more than any heavy-handed abortion ban ever can.

          • oregon nurse

            Sex education includes passing along the knowledge that contraception often fails to prevent pregnancy. There is a clear choice to go ahead anyway. That’s the choice that should be your focus, not the decision to escape the consequences of a prior choice.

          • Sven2547

            Sex education includes passing along the knowledge that contraception often fails to prevent pregnancy.

            Correct, just as abstinence pledges often fail.

          • PlumDumpling

            You be abstinent. I will save France.
            Asexuals must not make rules for the sexually normal.

          • Perhaps I wouldn’t like the characterization but it would be linguistically accurate. A Cesarian birth will never cause a death, and in the case of true life or death pregnancy, the pro-life movement allows for the termination of that pregnancy. Yes that means an abortion, but a very rare event. I don’t know anyone that would allow a mother to die if that were truly the outcome of the pregnancy.

          • oregon nurse

            “Others oppose even those exceptions, insisting that pregnant women must give live birth or die trying.”

            Show me one Catholic theologian or clergy or pro-life politician that advocates what you’ve written. I know you can’t because they don’t exist. What you read posted by some anonymous person somewhere has no relevance here. Trying to pass off that statement as having any association with the Catholic Church or with pro-life organizations is the worst kind of dishonesty.

          • Sven2547

            Show me one Catholic theologian or clergy or pro-life politician that advocates what you’ve written.

            Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, excommunicated a woman for performing an abortion in 2009 to save a pregnant woman’s life. The Bishop defended the excommunication publicly, saying:

            “An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother’s life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means.”

            “The direct killing of an unborn child is always immoral, no matter the circumstances

            I know you can’t because they don’t exist.

            You shouldn’t make claims like this when you don’t know what you’re talking about. It makes you look silly when you get easily proven wrong.

            What you read posted by some anonymous person somewhere has no relevance here. Trying to pass off that statement as having any association with the Catholic Church or with pro-life organizations is the worst kind of dishonesty.

            This is the Bishop of Phoenix, not some random internet homebody. And denying that he is associated with the Catholic Church is the worst kind of dishonesty.

          • oregon nurse

            And what he said/did is not what you posted. Think about it instead of jumping to conclusions. An abortion is not a first line treatment for cardio/pulmonary failure.

          • Sven2547

            This is exactly what I posted. It is the clearly-stated position of Bishop Olmsted that abortion is never permissible, even if it would be to save a pregnant woman’s life. This is not a jumped-to conclusion, this is a statement of fact. You are swimming in denial.

          • oregon nurse

            it is never permissible as a first line treatment (which is what happened in the case you cite) and if you had a better knowledge of medicine you’d understand how exceedingly rare it would be for that to be the ONLY treatment – just about nil and very probably technically zero.

            The other side of the coin which you don’t mention is that it is also never permissible to deny a woman any and all appropriate medical and/or surgical lifesaving treatment even if it means it could unintentionally harm or kill her unborn child. That covers virtually everything.

          • Sven2547

            it is never permissible as a first line treatment

            What part of the Bishop’s very clear statements do you not understand? He makes no allowances for abortion under any circumstances. You are continuing to embarrass yourself. You claimed the ‘no exceptions’ position does not exist in the pro-life movement. I proved you wrong. Deal with it and move on.

          • oregon nurse

            What part of my comment do you not understand that direct abortion is always an optional treatment rather than the only treatment?

          • Sven2547

            You’re just dishonestly evading the point. You can’t even admit you were wrong.

            Besides, you weren’t one of the medical professionals involved in the case, so on what grounds can you make this claim? Do you honestly think the Catholic medical staff would have performed this procedure if they didn’t consider it a last resort?

            I am addressing facts. You are making idle speculation. You made a claim. I easily and directly refuted it.

          • oregon nurse

            I’m evading nothing. You are dishonestly refusing to address what I’ve written.

            I wasn’t there in the room but I certainly made it a point to learn about it afterwards.

            Do you honestly think all Catholics and Catholic institutions operate in lockstep with the magisterium?

          • Sven2547

            Do you honestly think all Catholics and Catholic institutions operate in lockstep with the magisterium?

            Nope, and I never implied they do.

            What I said was that there are some in the pro-life movement who make no exceptions, even when it would save the pregnant woman’s life.

            Your explosive response was to deny it, call me a liar, and challenge me to “show me one Catholic theologian or clergy or pro-life politician that advocates what you’ve written”, stupidly adding “I know you can’t because they don’t exist.”

            I provided Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, refuting everything you said. Somehow, instead of acknowledging your error, you are continuing to flap your arms and kick straw-men.

          • oregon nurse

            Sven: “Do you honestly think the Catholic medical staff would have performed this procedure if they didn’t consider it a last resort?”

            Me: Do you honestly think all Catholics and Catholic institutions operate in lockstep with the magisterium?

            Sven: Nope, and I never implied they do.

            Really? I’m done. It’s just arguing in circles from here.

          • Sven2547

            You’ve been done since I said the name Thomas J. Olmsted

          • PlumDumpling

            God’s truth.
            I loved her stuttering and stammering. And the lying and the shaming. Typical forced birth cultist behavior.

          • PlumDumpling

            Abortion is legal.
            Murder is illegal.
            That which is legal cannot also be illegal.
            Therefore abortion is not murder.
            It is worth noting that abortion was not murder when it was illegal.
            Refute me. I will wait.
            Flagged and downvoted you because I am sick of this hoary lie you forced birth cultists tell over and over.

          • PlumDumpling

            So silly.
            I am PRO ABORTION for any woman who wants an abortion. I am PRO BIRTH for any woman who wants to give birth.
            I am PRO WOMAN running her own sexual/family life without coercion.

          • You call yourself plum dumpling and I’m the silly one…lol. I remember you. You’re the moron lady with the limited intelligence. Have you found that psychiatrist yet? Until then there’s no point in discussing anything with a demented person. Hope you get the help.

          • PlumDumpling

            What does what you typed have to do with what I typed?

          • PlumDumpling

            Plum Dumplings are so good. And so am I.
            http://allrecipes.com/recipe/plum-dumplings/

        • PlumDumpling

          Jehovah is a proabort. Hosea 13:16.

      • As to the Libertarian tendency, I said tendency, I didn’t say absolute. There is still common sense involved. No one in history has ever supported SSM until now, and only if you if you throw out any sense of logic pertaining to human sexual functionality can one support it. Bottom line, it makes no sense to anyone with common sense.

        • Sven2547

          No one in history has ever supported SSM until now, and only if you if you throw out any sense of logic pertaining to human sexual functionality can one support it.

          As yes, two frequently-debunked arguments: “it’s always been that way” isn’t a legal justification for anything. Also, same-sex marriage has been lawful for a number of years now in a number of places, so it’s factually incorrect to say nobody ever supported it until now. Finally, marriage isn’t babymaking and babymaking isn’t marriage. No wonder your position keeps losing in court.

          • Somehow you have overturned the perception of thousands of years to make SSM palatable to the culture. it’s a current fad. It will change. Even people who support SSM turn their heads in repulsion when they see two men having sex.

          • Sven2547

            Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is more than a “fad”.

          • PlumDumpling

            You have seen two men having sex? Do tell. Porno? Bath house? Wander the parks at night? You are a peeker?

          • Sven2547

            ‘Gay sex is gross, therefore is should be illegal’

            Airtight logic there, buddy. It’s astounding you lose every single court case with that line of reasoning…

          • oregon nurse

            And ssm has been defeated virtually every time it’s been voted on. Public support for gay sex is very thin. If the SCOTUS rules there is no constitutional right to ssm you will probably be shocked at how fast support for it falls at the polls.

          • Sven2547

            SSM has 56% support among the US population, and has won every ballot it has been on since 2012.

            You have an amazing talent for being factually wrong, do you know that?

          • oregon nurse

            Don’t mistake a desire to be legally fair with support for gay sex. If the ‘right’ isn’t there, the fair factor can easily go away.

          • Sven2547

            A partial list of US court precedents that marriage is a “right”:

            Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888)
            Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)
            Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942)
            Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965)
            Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967)
            Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971)
            Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974)
            Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977)
            Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977)
            Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978)
            Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987)
            Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992)
            M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996)
            Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003)
            United States v Windsor 570 U.S. (2013)

            And even if it’s NOT a “right” (lol), you still need a reason to BAN it… a reason that has yet to be articulated by any person to date.

          • oregon nurse

            The definiton of marriage as one man, one woman needs no BAN on ssm. Bans only came into being because of attempts to change state law definitions. We can dump all bans once the issue of the state’s right to define marriage is settled.

          • PlumDumpling

            Marriage is a contract supported by the state that makes two nonkin each other’s next of kin. The contract also functions as a container for treasure and progeny. Gay folks have both treasure and progeny. Marriage is a civil right.

          • Sven2547

            If we were to define “voter” as “males 18 and older”, it would be a de facto ban on women voters. Similarly, defining “marriage” as one man and one woman, that is a ban of same-sex marriage. And that’s not even counting the multiple states that explicitly (rather than implicitly) ban same-sex marriage.

            States do not have rights. They also do not have the lawful power to supersede federal and Constitutional law.

          • oregon nurse

            Thanks for making it clear why you are so confused on this subject.

          • Sven2547

            Whooops, I had a bad typo. That’s what I get for not proofreading. Does it make more sense, now that I’ve fixed it?

          • PlumDumpling

            What is ‘gay sex’ and how does it differ from heterosexual and bisexual sex? Be precise. Inquiring minds want to know.

          • kag1982

            There is a difference between “gay sex” and “gay marriage.” Gay people can already have all the sex with each other that they want and have since the beginning of time. Gay marriage is about allowing gay people in long term relationships to have the same social legal rights that straight couples have.

          • kag1982

            And people generally have sex with each other in public? I would turn my head away at seeing a man and a woman going at it in public as well as a gay couple. I would also call the cops as it is generally illegal to be having sex in public whether you are straight or gay.

  • BTP

    I completely agree with you here. Abortion is a political question and is addressed by the political process. Complaining about the capture of the pro-life movement by one party is, at best, an act of naïveté.

  • DC Rambler

    Well..Abortion wasn’t even part of the GOP platform until the late 70s when the Moral Majority joined forces with the Republicans to drive Christians to the polls. Jerry Falwell had never given a sermon on it until they saw that it could be a useful issue.
    One of the tragic effects of these futile efforts to stop abortions is women have been forced back into unsafe alternatives. Now that Texas has shut down so many clinics and squeezed Planned Parenthood, women are crossing the border for dangerous procedures and damaging their bodies or dying. They are also buying bootleg morning after pills at flea markets and in Mexico and ending up in the ER with serious problems. Since the closing of these clinics and the fact that Super Christian Rick Perry refuses to accept health care for millions of people ( one million children ) women will continue to struggle when they have no access to birth control pills or basic women’s health care. When one is poor, unable to feed their kids, unable to find work and no access to health care you probably don’t pay a lot of attention to what the self appointed guardians of morality have to say … Peace

    • Give me a break.

    • oregon nurse

      “Now that Texas has shut down so many clinics and squeezed Planned Parenthood,”

      LOL. Guess why those clinics get shut down? Because PP refuses to provide the same standard of care to women having abortions as is demanded of all other outpatient surgery centers. The insanity is that we have the so-called purveyor of women’s ‘health’ and women themselves protesting to keep their care substandard.

      • PlumDumpling

        Liar liar pants on fire.
        Abortion is safer than plastic surgery and dental treatment. Neither dentists nor plastic surgeons are required to meet surgery center standards.

      • Sven2547

        If you want to improve statewide health safety in outpatient procedures, you implement higher standards across-the-board.

        If you want to put the squeeze on abortion clinics while duping gullible ditto-heads into thinking this is a health initiative, you implement unreasonably high standards on abortion clinics, and ignore all other outpatient practices.

        Surprise! Texas did the latter, not the former.

        • oregon nurse

          PP is free to raise their standards and re-open their clinics. Guess why this group, so concerned with women’s ‘health’ isn’t doing that? One is profit. Another HUGE problem is that most PP abortionists don’t have admitting priviledges at local hospitals when they screw up and have to send the woman to the ER. Hospitals and ER docs don’t want abortionists and PP dumping their problems on them. Texas law prevents that.

          PP would rather see women go to Mexico than improve their care and re-open. And look how they have you carrying their water for them and making it someone else’s fault! Win-Win for PP.

          • PlumDumpling

            Catch up. You are hopelessly misinformed. Why is it that so many forced birther cultists pretend to be nurses?
            http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/07/planned-parenthood-opens-new-asc-abortion-clinic-in-dallas.html/

          • Sven2547

            Uh, what’s with the link to ‘fixcomputerupdate’??

          • PlumDumpling

            Why do you ask?

          • Sven2547

            Ah, thanks for fixing the link to something relevant. The previous ‘fixcomputerupdate’ url seemed irrelevant and questionable, to say the least

          • PlumDumpling

            Why do you ask? Should be obvious what happened. You majored in nit picking evidently. With a minor in viewing with alarm. And more than a few courses in shaming/blaming/accusing.
            I bet folks run when they see you coming.

          • Sven2547

            No need to be nasty. I asked an open question, then thanked you when you fixed it. Sheesh.

          • PlumDumpling

            I apologize. You are one of the sane, intelligent and courteous people on this site. I reacted before I recognized you. Being in the company of so many righteous rapists on this site tends to make me angry. I mistook you for one of them. Mea culpa.

      • Jim Dailey

        I think you are safe in bringing up Kermit Gosnell at this point. that is, they guy had all the liberal murder-money that east coast liberals could provide, and he still turned his “clinic” into a butcher shop.
        How much more do you suppose we would have had to pay Kermit to keep him from using his MD as a license to kill?

    • PlumDumpling

      Well said.
      ILLEGAL ABORTION and sepsis and hemorrhage in CHILDBIRTH are the three leading causes of maternal death worldwide. Women have blood in the game. Abortion and contraception are human rights.
      http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/254

      Summary

      In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health considers the interaction between criminal laws and other legal restrictions relating to sexual and reproductive health and the right to health. The right to sexual and reproductive health is a fundamental part of the right to health. States must therefore ensure that this aspect of the right to health is fully realized.

      The Special Rapporteur considers the impact of criminal and other legal restrictions on abortion; conduct during pregnancy; contraception and family planning; and the provision of sexual and reproductive education and information.

      Some criminal and other legal restrictions in each of those areas, which are often discriminatory in nature, violate the right to health by restricting access to quality goods, services and information. They infringe human dignity by restricting the freedoms to which individuals are entitled under the right to health, particularly in respect of decision-making and bodily integrity. Moreover, the application of such laws as a means to achieving certain public health outcomes is often ineffective and disproportionate.

      Realization of the right to health requires the removal of barriers that interfere with individual decision-making on health-related issues and with access to health services, education and information, in particular on health conditions that only affect women and girls. In cases where a barrier is created by a criminal law or other legal restriction, it is the obligation of the State to remove it. The removal of such laws and legal restrictions is not subject to resource constraints and can thus not be seen as requiring only progressive realization. Barriers arising from criminal laws and other laws and policies affecting sexual and reproductive health must therefore be immediately removed in order to ensure full enjoyment of the right to health.

  • Ken

    I used to be the hardest core super conservative Republican in the world. Card carrying ditto head to the core. I remember the second I fell out of love with them. After they took over the House during Clinton’s Administration they immediately went to cut social programs but one in particular stunned me. They wanted to cut breakfast programs for poor kids in public schools. They were claiming this was to cut the budget but it was such a small amount of money it seemed the only reason was because they have an antagonism to poor people especially minorities. Now, I know that not all Republicans or even many feel this way but some of their talking points seem to be purely mean spirited and cruel to the most poor. I couldn’t find myself to be a such an ardent supporter for the party anymore. I’ve continued to vote for Republicans solely due to Pro-Life issues. Even though I’ve done this I think they’ve used my vote more often then not.

    I think one of the issues with being tied to a party is that it can confuse people. I’ve talked to a lot of Republican Catholics who don’t seem to know that the Church is against the death penalty. They seem to think that since we’re urged to vote for Republicans all of their policies must be in line with the Church. Also, even more disturbing is for people who know that the Church opposes some Republican policies and they just don’t care. They’ve become more loyal to the party then the Catholic Church.

    On the other side some Democrats see the Church supporting Republicans and see some of their policies and think that if they are allowing people to ignore some issues so it might be okay to ignore other issues. In short, there seems to be legitimate confusion in some areas and in others, purposely manipulating teachings to conform to their beliefs.

    I think the American Catholic Church should support of Pro-Life policies in more of a nuanced tone and explain that this is one issue and that they aren’t perfectly in line with the Republican Party. I know they do this to an extant but it should be more of a focus.

    • There’s certainly a meanness to some conservatives that is grating, if not, at times, infuriating.

      Oh, and by the way, the Catholic Church does not oppose the death penalty.

      Thanks for your comment.

      • Sven2547

        Oh, and by the way, the Catholic Church does not oppose the death penalty.

        While it has not been codified in official Canon Law, the Roman Catholic Church has been railing against the death penalty for decades. In 1999, Pope John Paul II didn’t mince words, calling it “cruel and unnecessary”. In 2007, the Vatican released an official position paper saying the death penalty “is not only a refusal of the right to life, but it also is an affront to human dignity”. “The Holy See takes this occasion to welcome and affirm again its support for all initiatives aimed at defending the inherent and inviolable value of all human life from conception to natural death,” it said. A capital execution, it said, is “a clear offense against the inviolability of human life” and can contribute to “a culture of violence and death.”

        Pulled directly from the Vatican website, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that killing is only justifiable in self-defense, when there is no other option (emphasis mine):

        Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

        If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

        http://www.vatican.VA/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

        • oregon nurse

          It’s pretty clear the Church is not against the death penalty per se (as it is against abortion) but only where it is not technically feasible to ensure the safety of the populace. That pretty much means the US and all societies capable of keeping it’s prisoner’s securely locked up.

          What I feel gets overlooked in the topic discussion is what it takes to keep those people securely locked up. At what point is the financial cost to society so great and the human cost to prisoners so great (super-max style isolation) that execution is the more moral option?

          • Sven2547

            It’s pretty clear the Church is not against the death penalty per se

            I’m astounded you can read what I have posted, quoting official Vatican policy, and still come to that conclusion. Wow.

            What I feel gets overlooked in the topic discussion is what it takes to keep those people securely locked up. At what point is the financial cost to society so great and the human cost to prisoners so great (super-max style isolation) that execution is the more moral option?

            This subject is addressed in almost every capital punishment discussion I’ve ever participated in. The costs to the legal system are significantly greater when we use capital punishment compared to when we do not. That’s because a death sentence kicks off an automatic appeals process, whereas imprisonment is comparatively inexpensive.

            http://www.forbes.COM/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/

          • oregon nurse

            “I’m astounded you can read what I have posted, quoting official Vatican policy, and still come to that conclusion. Wow.”

            How do you get an absolute, against the death penalty position from this?

            Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

            And we do not as a Church do a good job of discussing the burdens of keeping people locked up for life in the manner described above when we talk about pro-life issues. We don’t “rail” against the death penalty, but we could do better at discussing it more honestly. We don’t do well with that as a society either. I stand by my prior comment.

          • Sven2547

            How do you get an absolute, against the death penalty position from this?

            “cruel and unnecessary”

            “not only a refusal of the right to life, but it also is an affront to human dignity”

            “a clear offense against the inviolability of human life”

            This is pretty unambiguous stuff.

          • oregon nurse

            You have taken the comments out of their essential context of

            “If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect
            people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such
            means,…”

            If those means don’t exist then the death penalty is moral. I propose that the question of what it takes to keep people safe (including other prisoners) is also something that has to be addressed. The statement is not meant to be the only thing to be said on the issue. It is just a statement.

          • Sven2547

            You’re the one ignoring context. The context here is self-defense (or the immediate defense of other innocents). That’s the only time you may kill according to the Vatican. In contrast, a prisoner strapped to a table endangers no one.

        • Ken

          I had no idea this was going to be a debate. What’s the deal with this site? No one seems to have any handle on the teachings of the church. They don’t even seem to care about direct writings and teachings. It’s bizarre. Even if you spoon feed to them they don’t even care. I struggle with some of the teachings of the church but I respect them. I especially do so when it becomes a point of emphasis. I wouldn’t go onto a public site and try to dispute it I would at least research it to get a better understanding.

      • Ken

        My understanding is that they oppose it in almost every case especially in the US. I thought that the concern was over public safety. A person placed in prison hundreds of years ago or even in some countries today could escape and continue to commit crimes. I was speaking of the US, that is so unlikely that the death penalty would not be needed.

        Here is the quote from the Catechism and the American Bishops have put out a statement that opposed it in the US. The Catechism lives a tiny room that this could still be used but it certainly wouldn’t be used as often as the Republican Party promotes it.

        Below is a link to the letter from the American Bishops and the quote from the Catechism. Why is this so complicated? Is it because people care more about their political beliefs? I don’t get it.

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/bishopstate.html

        “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have
        been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not
        exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way
        of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

        If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect
        people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such
        means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of
        the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human
        person.

        Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the
        state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has
        committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively
        taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in
        which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very
        rare, if not practically non-existent” (#2267).”

        • oregon nurse

          “A person placed in prison hundreds of years ago or even in some countries today could escape and continue to commit crimes.”

          True, but it’s not just those on the outside who are at risk. It’s also the prison staff and other inmates which means solitary confinement is the only truly safe option. Is that more humane than the death penalty for a man in his 20s?

        • Antiphon411

          The point of capital punishment is not to protect the community. The point of all punishment is retributive justice. Punishment is used to right the scales of justice. If someone does wrong he is punished to balance things. Deterrence and correction are secondary aims.

          When a man dies in a state of Grace he will still (with some exceptions) spend time in Purgatory because he owes something for the sins he has committed in life.

    • Jim Dailey

      During every major election, I eagerly await the analysis of the Catholic Church as to which party best supports the tenets of the Chruch. To me, it is often a careful counterbalancing of virtues and sins present in either parties platform. That is, it reminds me of a debate regarding which is the lesser evil (sadly).

      I am saddened by your decision to become a “single issue” voter. I think you obviously have the capacity to understand more nuanced views, and I think you were given this gift from God with the intent that you should exercise it.

      As the author in the article referenced to this article writes, whenever one party or another feels that they have a group of voters “in their back pocket” they immediately cease to care about those voters.

  • JohnMcG

    On the Supreme Court…

    It is true that any real legal protection for the unborn will require a sympathetic Supreme Court.

    On the other hand, I’ve become increasingly of the opinion that the Supreme Court’s opinions are as much a mirror of elite opinion as they are of either constitutional principles or the politics of the people who appointed them. It has been well observed that many of the pro-SSM decisions came from judges appointed by Republicans.

    I don’t think that, absent a shift in elite opinion, that any Supreme Court would seriously confront Roe vs. Wade.

    So for me, that is where the focus is (not to say that’s where it should be for everyone), and I have found that being strongly associated with the Republican Party hurts that.

    But I could be wrong.

  • Dan13

    “In the United States, abortion policy is decided by the Supreme Court. In 1973, five Justices of the United States Supreme Court decided, with absolutely no basis in American constitutional law, that abortion-on-demand at any point in the pregnancy was a constitutional right. ”

    Not quite. Roe v. Wade stated that abortion couldn’t be prohibited in the first two trimesters. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (the current law of the land in regard to the abortion issue) allows a state to ban abortion once the fetus becomes viable. U.S. jurisdictions may ban “late-term” abortions if they desire.

    Further, the rationale behind Roe started to form in Griswold v. Connecticut (preventing the state of Connecticut from banning contraceptions).

    • Dan13

      Oh, and to clarify, I’m pro-life. I just wanted to highlight what the law currently is.

      • PlumDumpling

        I am PRO life so naturally I am PRO choice.

  • oregon nurse

    I personally don’t see how any Catholic can be loyal to either party. Neither one encompasses the totality of Catholic faith and morals. At best, vote for an individual candidate who seems the lesser of 2 bad choices regardless of party. Sometimes I think the moral choice is not to vote for either one. I don’t advocate not voting but you can always write in a name.

    • PlumDumpling

      The Republican Party platform endorses the rape and breeder slavery of women citizens of the USA. Neither I nor my three adult daughters will vote for a Republican under any circumstances until this is removed from the party platform.

      • JohnMcG

        I do not vote Republican, but I’m wondering if you could cite the section of the Republican Party platform that endorses rape and breeder slavery of women citizens of the USA.

        • PlumDumpling

          Is your google finger broken? You want me to read it for you too?
          http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

          • JohnMcG

            The only mention of “rape” was for mandatory sentences for rape, among other crimes.

            The only mention of “slavery” was a section opposing human trafficking.

            Again, could you please cite the section of the platform that endorses rape and breeder slaver of women citizens of the USA, or provide an apology.

          • PlumDumpling

            What do you think I need to apologize for?

          • oregon nurse

            For being a troll.

          • PlumDumpling

            Pfffft.

          • JohnMcG

            For making a factual claim that you could not back up with evidence.

          • PlumDumpling

            You could not find the section on reproductive rights in the copy of the platform I gave you? And you feel I must apologize for YOUR ineptitude?

          • JohnMcG

            You mentioned rape and slavery, not “reproductive rights.”

          • PlumDumpling

            Conversing with you is like trying to skip with a 50 lb weight attached to your ankle. I hate it. I am not going to do it anymore

      • Jim Dailey

        HAW HAW HAW! I like how you refer to “breeder slavery” being a plank in the Republican platform, and in the same breath proudly dictate to your “adult daughters” how to vote! HAW HAW HAW!

        • PlumDumpling

          My daughters and I are intimate. We live together. We discuss/argue politics together.
          You do not have intimate family life?
          No wonder you are prone to hysterical inappropriate affect. Poor thing. Family is everything. Poor poor thing.

          • Jim Dailey

            Yes I raised a family as well. My adult children do not live with me. My adult children do not agree with me lock-step on every issue.
            Perhaps that is because I raised MY adult children to be independent. We are all (parents and children alike) happy with the situation. You should try it.

          • PlumDumpling

            I am always amazed at the average forced birther cultist’s ability to utilize clairvoyance and mental telepathy. Amazed.

          • Jim Dailey

            Hah hah. As indicated, I raised adult children, one of whom is a woman. I am well aware of the mother-daughter dynamic, and have seen it at work not only in my immediate family, but in the families of virtually everyone I know.

            However, from your posts I see that you are a special case indeed. So, having your three adult daughters living at home with you may in fact be an ideal situation in your very special circumstances. Good luck with that!

          • PlumDumpling

            The following medical conditions are some of the possible causes of Inappropriate laughter. There are likely to be other possible causes, so ask your doctor about your symptoms.

            Drug intoxication
            Substance abuse
            Dementia
            Temporal lobe injury
            Alcohol intoxication
            Tic disorders
            Tourette syndrome
            Social anxiety
            Angelman syndrome
            Pseudobulbar palsy
            Gelastic epilepsy
            Brain tumors
            Multiple sclerosis
            Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

          • oregon nurse

            I suspect she wouldn’t recognize a functional family dynamic if it hit her upside the head.

          • Jim Dailey

            Right? I can not imagine what would cause someone to brag that their adult children live at home with them. Mama Plum must be a real peach.

      • Mike Blackadder

        ‘rape and breeder slavery of women’? Really? Last I checked Republicans aren’t pro-rape. Nor had I ever heard that Republicans supported forcing women to have sex to breed children.

        The consequence-free-sex abortion party commit two terrible atrocities against women. First, slightly greater than half of the people who are aborted are female. They are ground up and discarded and according to the Democrat party are paid zero regard as human beings and their life and suffering are completely ignored. Second, the chosen avenue of contraceptives, abortion and sex outside the commitment of marriage and the emphasis of a ‘woman’s choice’ puts ALL of the burden of killing this innocent life OR living under poverty as single mothers on the shoulders of WOMEN.

        YOU get to feel good telling a woman she has a choice to have an abortion and SHE gets to suffer for the rest of her life knowing that she consigned an innocent person to death. Wow, aren’t you a nice guy?

        • Asemodeus

          “Really? Last I checked Republicans aren’t pro-rape.”

          They are when they limit female empowerment. Which is a huge plank of their political power.

          The rest is the usual forced birther nonsense that isn’t even worthy of refutation.

          • Mike Blackadder

            A platform that says woman are going to get pregnant and/or ruin their lives by conceiving a child unless big brother buys them condoms and forcefully removes conceived babies from their wombs is YOUR idea of ‘female empowerment’? And if you disagree with this version of ’empowerment’ that makes you pro-rape?

            That’s getting close to the most idiotic argument that I’ve ever heard. And that’s saying a lot, because I speak with Democrats often lol.

          • PlumDumpling

            I read the Democratic Party platform. None of what you wrote is in it, Piscialetto.

          • Mike Blackadder

            So you’re in denial that Democrats are pushing through every barrier (including basic rights) to assert that women must have their contraceptives paid for? Aren’t abortions and contraceptives a basic necessity for women according to Democrats?

          • PlumDumpling

            No. No.

          • Mike Blackadder

            Good. Maybe you guys are ‘evolving’ again.

          • PlumDumpling

            Who is ‘you guys?’

          • Mike Blackadder

            Come on Plum, we’re discussing vegetable soup. Please try to keep up!

          • PlumDumpling

            You guys = vegetable soup?

          • Asemodeus

            “A platform that says woman are going to get pregnant and/or ruin their
            lives by conceiving a child unless big brother buys them condoms and
            forcefully removes conceived babies from their wombs is YOUR idea of
            ‘female empowerment’?”

            Obviously. Having women be in control of their own reproduction is a good thing. How you seem to disagree with this line of common sense is what makes you a republican.

            “And if you disagree with this version of ’empowerment’ that makes you pro-rape?”

            Disagreeing with the idea that women can make their own choices in life is the hallmark of a rapist mindset.

          • Mike Blackadder

            Haha. Thanks that’s wonderful. Now if you don’t mind the grown ups are trying to have a conversation here…

          • Asemodeus

            Your perverted need to control the sex lives of women is why your ilk will never be allowed back on the national stage.

          • Mike Blackadder

            Another brilliant point! If only the other half of the country could learn how to think for themselves we wouldn’t have to argue about trivially stupid things. Saying that a woman who chooses to have sex and use contraceptives ought to go ahead and buy her own contraceptives so she can engage in this form of recreation IS NOT controlling people’s sex lives. Nor is it ‘perverted’ to insist that they shouldn’t be killing other people as a matter of preference. Please lob some more grapefruits this way. Maybe others are gaining insight into the level of morality and intellect represented in the Democrat party!

          • Asemodeus

            ” Saying that a woman who chooses to have sex and use contraceptives
            ought to go ahead and buy her own contraceptives so she can engage in
            this form of recreation IS NOT controlling people’s sex lives.”

            Multiple forms of birth control also serve medical heath purposes outside of contraception. Which is why they are covered under health insurance plans. So this is a perfect reason of why ignorant republicans, such as yourself, will never understand the problems women will face, and why they will never vote for republicans into office.

            Also being pregnant in and of itself is a health care issue. Pretending that women who use contraception are sluts isn’t going to help you at all.

            The rest is the usual GOP gibberish and lies.

          • Mike Blackadder

            Right, so if this contraceptives debate isn’t actually about birth control (wink wink) in that case how is it exactly that I’m acting to control women’s sex lives? Not to mention pro-rape LOL. As always, the brilliance of the Democrat platform is an amazing thing to the dispassionate observer!

          • Asemodeus

            “Right, so if this contraceptives debate isn’t actually about birth
            control (wink wink) in that case how is it exactly that I’m acting to
            control women’s sex lives?”

            By denying them contraception. You have a hard time grasping that one item can have multiple uses. Do you even have object permanence?

            Why do you hate women so much and want to forcible control them so badly? Superiority complex? Are you a sadist?

          • Mike Blackadder

            Asemodeus you are thoroughly confusing yourself.

            Is it possible to… write… things… very… slowly… so… that… others… can… follow… the… argument…?

            It… is… not… controlling… women’s… sex… lives… to… assert… that… they… buy… their… own… contraceptives… when… they… choose… to… use… contraceptives. A… woman.. can… freely… have… sex… using… contraceptives… without… requiring… my… permission! Is… this… exceedingly… difficult… to… grasp?

            Similarly… if… my… insurance… coverage… doesn’t… pay… for… contraceptives… this… is… not… a… denial… of… birth… control… it… is… simply… an… instance… where… such… birth… control… is… paid… for… by… the… user… and… not… by… others… who… don’t… use… it.

          • oregon nurse

            You are the one that has no grasp of the issue you try to argue. Do you know that Catholics separate the different uses of what is commonly known as birth control pills? And Catholic doctors and Catholic institutions and Catholic insurance companies all provide and pay for BCP’s for non-contraceptive purposes? And when they are prescribed for non-contraceptive purposes they are not referred to as contraceptives?

            Be consistent when you demand that the government and religion stay out of your sex life – Pay for your own damn contraceptives!

          • Mike Blackadder

            ‘GOP gibberish and lies.’

            You know that doesn’t actually work here, because other people can actually read our comments. You’re just going to have to get by on the strength of your arguments.

            As I already stated in a previous reply that is maybe in moderation or somehow been removed: you are the one who has said that I have some perverted desire to control women’s sex lives. So how is it exactly that you sustain this view while simultaneously arguing that the coverage for contraceptives under insurance plans are due to alternate health issues other than birth control? The whole point is that I’m not controlling anyone’s sex life by suggesting that they ought to buy their own contraceptives.

            Do you have anything of substance to add to this conversation?

          • Asemodeus

            “You know that doesn’t actually work here, because other people can
            actually read our comments. You’re just going to have to get by on the
            strength of your arguments.”

            After knocking down the same gibberish time after time you can excuse me for finding it no longer interesting.
            If you want to step up and be a big boy you need to find better arguments for your misogyny.

            ” So how is it exactly that you sustain this view while simultaneously
            arguing that the coverage for contraceptives under insurance plans are
            due to alternate health issues other than birth control?”

            Because, back in reality, an item can have multiple uses. Women don’t like the GOP because they, including you, think contraception is only for sluts. When I pointed out your misogyny you tried to distract from this revelation.

            “The whole point is that I’m not controlling anyone’s sex life by suggesting that they ought to buy their own contraceptives.”

            You gave the game away when you said ‘consequence free sex’. You are wanting to control the sex lives of women by denying them health care, and that is why women hate the GOP.

            “Do you have anything of substance to add to this conversation?”

            You were the one ignorant on the multipurpose of contraception. Maybe you should do a better job educating yourself before talking to your superiors.

          • Mike Blackadder

            Ridiculous assertions heaped upon more ridiculous assertions. Calling people misogynist, and pro-rape and liars without any form of substantial argument to back it up is simply not going to cut it in mature company.

            If a man and a woman have sex for pleasure and conceive a child then they are left responsible (though often the responsibility is laid upon the woman alone) to either raise the child or kill it. That is an actual consequence of sex that is pretended away by the moral depravity of the Democrat party by pretending that certain people are not people. Also, there are many people who enjoy sex and bear children, others who choose not to have sex, others who want to have sex but don’t want to get pregnant. Sex is according to an individual’s choice. There are also men and women who can’t find work, who don’t have enough food, who have medical conditions like diabetes and depression and don’t have coverage for their pills, yet somehow it warrants name-calling and disdain to assert that recreational sex can rightfully be funded by those engaging in recreational sex, and not the general public, and that when there are real consequences that result from a choice of engaging in recreational sex that the individual is ultimately held responsible. None of this amounts to a lie or a hatred of women or secret approval of rape. It amounts to looking at society and forming defensible priorities and simple standards of individual responsibility that accompanies their choices.

          • Asemodeus

            ” Calling people misogynist,”

            People that think contraception is only for consequence free sex are misogynists. Own up to your bigotries so you can learn and improve yourself.

            “If a man and a woman have sex for pleasure and conceive a child then they are left responsible”

            Ignoring the part where sex doesn’t 100% certain a pregnancy. I don’t know the exact percent off of the top of my head, but maybe 5%?

            ” to either raise the child or kill it. ”

            A totipotent cell isn’t the same thing as a actual baby, so you can stop lying for a change.

            ” That is an actual consequence of sex that is pretended away by the
            moral depravity of the Democrat party by pretending that certain people
            are not people.”

            See above. It is actual depravity to deny rights to an actual human being for no good reason.

            “Also, there are many people who enjoy sex and bear children, others who
            choose not to have sex, others who want to have sex but don’t want to
            get pregnant.”

            Congratulations for stating the obvious.

            “yet somehow it warrants name-calling and disdain to assert that
            recreational sex can rightfully be funded by those engaging in
            recreational sex”

            Again, since this is confusing for you, but contraception is a health care issue, not a slut issue. Just how dense can you be?

            ” None of this amounts to a lie or a hatred of women or secret approval of rape.”

            You want to control women’s sexuality and reproductive freedom by force, which is no different from a rapist.

            ” It amounts to looking at society and forming defensible priorities and
            simple standards of individual responsibility that accompanies their
            choices.”

            More gibberish. It isn’t controversial to cover health care under health insurance. Your continuous refusal to deal with reality is why women are running away from the GOP.

          • Mike Blackadder

            That was an awesome reply. I really like the flailing nonsensical parts and the common underlying theme of excessively poor judgement about pretty much everything you talk about.

            What’s nice is that you’ve inserted some of my own text so I can pretty much copy the whole comment and save it for later and post it as a way of shaming other Democrats.

            “People that think contraception is only for consequence free sex are misogynists. Own up to your bigotries so you can learn and improve yourself.”

            That one’s a keeper all on its own. Love it. I’m going to print that out and put it on the fridge at work and write ‘- said a Democrat’ at the bottom.

            “”If a man and a woman have sex for pleasure and conceive a child then they are left responsible”

            Ignoring the part where sex doesn’t 100% certain a pregnancy. I don’t know the exact percent off of the top of my head, but maybe 5%?”

            What’s ignoring the part where sex doesn’t 100% lead to pregnancy? Huh? I’m pretty much speechless. Congratulations.

            “A totipotent cell isn’t the same thing as a actual baby, so you can stop lying for a change.”

            Yeah, because obviously I’ve been lying SOOO much. What a liar when I said that a ‘totipotent’ cell is a baby /sarc. Just to be clear my brilliant and scientifically literate friend, if someone were to steal your liver and you subsequently complained about it, would your Democrat friends proceed to stamp their feet and call YOU a dirty liar for suggesting that a liver is actually a person? It sounds pretty weird to me, but they’re YOUR friends after all!

            “”yet somehow it warrants name-calling and disdain to assert that
            recreational sex can rightfully be funded by those engaging in
            recreational sex”

            Again, since this is confusing for you, but contraception is a health care issue, not a slut issue. Just how dense can you be?”

            Not so dense that I don’t understand what ‘contraception’ means. See now we’ve moved from completely nonsensical stuff to what is merely an unsubstantiated assertion. ‘Contraception is health care’ just as in-vitro fertilization is health care, just as toothpaste and living in a house (and not out in the rain) is healthcare. Where’s my universal coverage bro? Contraceptives are not a necessity by any stretch of the imagination. And even if they were there are many things which are necessary for maintaining personal health that individuals are expected to pay for themselves.

            “You want to control women’s sexuality and reproductive freedom by force, which is no different from a rapist.”

            Not at all, but maybe you should meet their boyfriends. Good thing you’ve got their backs about how contraceptives and abortion are the manner in which a woman establishes sexual and reproductive freedom. See in my mind a woman’s non-rape status and sexual freedom consists of equally viable choices to engage in sex or not engage in sex, to use contraceptives or not use contraceptives. Some women actually believe that it’s wrong to use contraceptives. Does that mean that they are RAPISTS?

          • Asemodeus

            “What’s ignoring the part where sex doesn’t 100% lead to pregnancy?”

            You are if you think sex always leads to pregnancy, which you implied with that post.

            “Yeah, because obviously I’ve been lying SOOO much. What a liar when I
            said that a ‘totipotent’ cell is a baby /sarc. Just to be clear my
            brilliant and scientifically literate friend, if someone were to steal
            your liver and you subsequently complained about it, would your Democrat
            friends proceed to stamp their feet and call YOU a dirty liar for
            suggesting that a liver is actually a person? It sounds pretty weird to
            me, but they’re YOUR friends after all!”

            Since you didn’t address the comment we both know that you have no clue what I just said. You are really ignorant on a wide range of topics.

            “‘Contraception is health care’ just as in-vitro fertilization is health
            care, just as toothpaste and living in a house (and not out in the rain)
            is healthcare.”

            Endometriosis.

            ” And even if they were there are many things which are necessary for
            maintaining personal health that individuals are expected to pay for
            themselves.”

            You have a hard time grasping the concept that health care should be covered under health insurance. Since this conflicts with your misogyny about how contraception is only there for sluts.

            “Some women actually believe that it’s wrong to use contraceptives. Does that mean that they are RAPISTS?”

            They are not forcing other women to conform to their standards, so your analogy fails. You really need to work on your reasoning skills along with basic biology studies.

            The rest is gibberish.

          • ACMEMAC

            I hope I have found you

          • Mike Blackadder

            This is actually kind of fun.

            “”If a man and a woman have sex for pleasure and conceive a child then they are left responsible”

            How is it that this comment implies a belief that sex leads 100% to pregnancy? Is this the kind of reasoning that led to your support for Barack Obama?

            “Since you didn’t address the comment we both know that you have no clue what I just said. You are really ignorant on a wide range of topics.”

            Well I do know that a totipotent cell is a cell and so except in the earliest instants following conception would only comprise part of a person. Since I never actually said that an undivided individual cell “is the same thing as a baby” I admit that I didn’t fully grasp the assertion you were trying to make about what I didn’t actually say.

            And oh yes, certainly really ignorant on a wide range of topics. So ignorant that I don’t even know what you certainly don’t know about what I know.

            “Endometriosis” and treatment for such is not opposed by Catholics or the GOP even if contraceptive medications are used. Only contraceptives for the soul purpose of contraception.

            Besides: gingivitis – educate yourself.

            “Since this conflicts with your misogyny about how contraception is only there for sluts.”

            Actually what I said is that “See in my mind a woman’s non-rape status and sexual freedom consists of equally viable choices to engage in sex or not engage in sex, to use contraceptives or not use contraceptives. Some women actually believe that it’s wrong to use contraceptives. Does that mean that they are RAPISTS?”

            Now see when I said THAT you responded in your ordinary way of suggesting that this is ‘gibberish’. In any case, I’m left wondering how it is that you translate THIS into the assertion that ‘contraception is only there for sluts’. Why are you so vehemently opposed to the notion that women and men actually have a choice about whether or not to have sex? Why the hyperbole suggesting I am calling women sluts because I acknowledge that they have that choice? Quite ironic that you would suggest it is ME who has the rapist mentality!

            “”Some women actually believe that it’s wrong to use contraceptives. Does that mean that they are RAPISTS?”

            They are not forcing other women to conform to their standards, so your analogy fails. You really need to work on your reasoning skills along with basic biology studies.”

            Reasoning is not your strength and that’s fine, so I’ll explain (but I don’t want to write in all those … …. again because that took a long time). See if a woman believes that it’s ‘wrong’ to use contraceptives then they really might not support the policy of having to pay for people’s birth control through their insurance policies. Now this is where it gets tricky because I’m try to apply Asemodeus logic now; but this idea that a woman who chooses to use birth control could legitimately get birth control without this other woman paying for it seems to be associated with being in favor of RAPE. Therefore, it would seem that according to you a very large number of women are actually rapists.

            Gibberish shmibberish.

          • Asemodeus

            Why do you feel the need to control a woman’s sexuality?

        • PlumDumpling
    • Antiphon411

      I don’t see how any Catholic can participate in Liberal Democracy, parties don’t really matter. Liberalism denies the authority of God and His rights. It derives authority from the people. How can a Catholic participate?

      • PlumDumpling

        Eeezy peezey.
        “Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church.”
        (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], “Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II”, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1, chapter 1.)

    • Jim Dailey

      I cannot remember the last time I voted “for” somebody as opposed to voting “against” somebody. I always go and take a shower after I leave the voting booth.

    • Asemodeus

      “I personally don’t see how any Catholic can be loyal to either party.”

      Only a idiot bases their voting patterns on religion in the first place.

  • davend

    When religious leaders see their power slipping away, they turn to politics; when politicians see their power slipping away, they turn to religion.

    Anyone who’s ever been to something like a March for Life can see that the event has really very little to do with the tragedy of abortion and is more about political power envy and “having fun.”

    • Jim Dailey

      In the article referenced by this blog there was an interesting quote that all political speech is “pornographic” in that it attempts to encourage action rather than understanding. I was struck by this line as I had never considered this a definition of “pornography” before.
      To the extent that a “March” for any cause represents the intersection of belief and political action, are you surprised that the organizers of any of these events would try to attract participants by providing an atmosphere of camaraderie and collegiality?
      Finally, in particular, the “March for Life” should be a life-affirming and joy-filled event, don’t you think?
      The pro-abort people really should assembe the dour, sackcloth-and-ashes “March for Death”.

      • davend

        I guess it depends on what you see as the purpose of such events. If you see such marches as political rallies designed to channel partisan red meat to the faithful, then they are certainly fulfilling their purpose. However, events such as the March for Life contain none of the gravitas of, say, the civil rights marches of the 1960s. Should they be joy-filled? I honestly don’t know. Party atmosphere with fancy lunches delivered by catering trucks? No. If, for example, I were attending a march to commemorate the Armenian genocide I wouldn’t expect such things. In my opinion these marches trivialize the issue.

        The cause against abortion is solely portrayed as a political, not a social or spiritual problem. Overturning Roe v. Wade is presented as the Holy Grail. Ask yourself why that is the case. If the Catholic Church was serious about ending abortion, the Church would be conducting studies to understand why women are having abortions in the first place and finding out ways in which these women could actually be helped. The Catholic bishops would be building homes right and left for women in crisis pregnancies and day care centers for small children who were saved from abortion. But none of these happen. Why not? Because abortion is seen as the surest way to “fire up the troops” and shore up political support for the Church by demonizing the “other.” Actually ending abortion would be giving up that political power.

  • captcrisis

    If you want to eradicate abortion, you will work toward eliminating unwanted pregnancies, and if they happen, the desperate choices that the woman then faces. But that is a conversation that Republicans are notoriously uninterested in.

    • Antiphon411

      Abortion will never be eradicated, just as murder, theft, rape, fraud, etc. will not be. That doesn’t mean that it needs to be legal.

    • oregon nurse

      Billions of dollars spent on contraception and sex education and welfare for single mothers and still we have millions of abortions each year. You would have to be deluded to think that more of the same will ‘eradicate’ abortion. The only thing that will even reduce it is a return to a respect for life over self-interest.

      • captcrisis

        Well . . . guess which countries have the lowest abortion rates?

        • Jim Dailey

          I assume you are referencing the fact that most abortions take place in eastern Europe, where less money is spent on providing birth control?
          If this is what you are referencing, and if you are interested, I will dig up a post by Marc Barnes where he examines these assertions. Essentially it comes down to the idea that in eastern Europe abortion is acceptable as a form of birth control.
          Therefore the idea of investing more money in birth control and abortificents (and it would be a truly de minimis increase – that is – forcing people who object to pay for these things represents a truly insignificant amount of money) is incorrect.

          • PlumDumpling

            Abortion is birth control. It controls birth. You just do not like it. Cry me a river.

            Roman Catholic women have 23% of the abortions nationwide. And they have a higher rate of abortion than Protestants.

            Interestingly, Jewish women whose faith does not prohibit abortion/contraception have the lowest rate of abortion.

            We know that contraception lowers the rate of unintended pregnancies and abortion. That is a fact.

          • Jim Dailey

            I fail to see what the relative rates of abortion by religious affiliation has to do with a the relationship between $ invested in birth control versus lowered rates of abortion.

          • PlumDumpling

            Sweety, you are clueless. You could not get a clue if you were wandering in Clue Forest on Clue Mating Day while wearing clue musk.

            This incurable and dense cluelessness is a general feature of forced birther cultist’s methods of operation. Always a fooking hoot.

          • PlumDumpling

            Dig up the Marc Barnes post. I could use a good laugh this morning.

          • Jim Dailey

            OK – here they are. Sorry for being electronically challenged – (i.e. it looks like you will have to copy and paste the reference into your search bar rather than just clicking it). Anyway if you get to the first post, their are links embedded there to part 2 and part 3.) I hope you find it thought provoking at least.

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/11/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement-rebuttal-up-in-hurrrrr-part-1.html

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/11/all-banning-abortion-does-is-make-it-unsafe-rebuttal-part-2.html

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/11/does-contraception-reduce-the-abortion-rate.html

          • PlumDumpling

            No thanks. I am not wandering all over the net to read a whackjob zealot. Make a better argument. This one relies on me doing the work for your argument.

          • Jim Dailey

            Yeah – understanding both sides of an issue does in fact require work. It is a tortuous process and demands that you look at a a dispute from several angles. Then you make an informed decision.

            Your posts are quite clear as to how you decision process works.

            People like you are why democracy is going to fail.

          • PlumDumpling

            If you want me to read your argument, put it in better form. Or not. Ho hum.

          • captcrisis

            The reason abortion is acceptable there is because contraception is either forbidden or not available — usually due to the influence of the Catholic Church. So women end up thinking of abortion as “birth control”. I’m thinking of the other advanced industrialized countries, for example Northern Europe.

          • Jim Dailey

            Please go to my citations in response to “Plum Dumpling” below. The third citation in the list leads you to a scholarly refutation of your hypothesis regarding abortion rates compared across regions.
            Barnes is a pretty good writer. I think you will enjoy it, even if you disagree with the conclusions.

      • PlumDumpling

        Criminalizing abortion will not end abortion. My Mother had an abortion when it was illegal. My Sister took quinine to abort in 1963. Women abort, legal or illegal, in the same numbers.

        All you will succeed in doing is killing and maiming women. And electing Dem Presidents.

        Ignore history and it will repeat itself. Women will have teach ins in their parlors again and they will teach menstrual extraction. Women were not waiting for the govenment to produce safe legal medical abortions. The government was late.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Collective

        Criminalizing abortion was such a huge blunder the last time we tried it, that Clergy formed a referral service for still illegal abortions and advertised their abortion service in the NYT.
        http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionus/p/clergy_abortion.htm

        Criminalize abortion and the state loses all control over abortion services. Gosnell was not scary enough for you fetus freaks? I wonder if the Mafia will go back into the abortion business. It will be a hoot.

      • Asemodeus

        “Billions of dollars spent on contraception and sex education and welfare
        for single mothers and still we have millions of abortions each year.”

        Billions also go into wildly ineffective abstinence programs that have a well recorded track record of failure. We could be doing a much much better job with sex educating and proper contraception use. Along with making them more wildly available and cheaper.

        • oregon nurse

          “Billions also go into wildly ineffective abstinence programs”

          Exaggerate much? I guess that’s the only way you can attempt to make your lies look like the truth.

          • Asemodeus

            Every metric of success on abstinence programs have shown them to be colossal failures.

          • Jim Dailey

            I do not think you are analyzing the metrics properly. Below are the results of a WHO study followed up with confirmation from Stanford University.

            From Wikipedia –

            Abstinence, be faithful, use a condom, also known as the ABC strategy or abstinence-plus sex education, also known as abstinence-based sex education, is a sex education policy based on a combination of “risk avoidance” and harm reduction which modifies the approach of abstinence-only sex education by including education about the value of partner reduction safe sex and birth control methods. Abstinence-only sex education is strictly to promote the sexual abstinence until marriage, and does not teach about safe sex or contraceptives. The abstinence-based sex education program is meant to
            stress abstinence and include information on safe sex practices. In general terms, this strategy of sex education is a compromise between abstinence-only education and comprehensive sex education. The ABC approach was developed in response to the growing epidemic of HIV/AIDS in Africa, and to prevent the spread of other sexually transmitted diseases. This approach has been credited by some with the falling numbers of those infected with AIDS in Uganda, Kenya and Zimbabwe, among others.
            From 1990 to 2001 the percentage of Ugandans living with AIDS fell from 15% to 5%. This fall is believed to result from the employment of the ABC approach,especially reduction in the number of sex partners, called”Zero-Grazing” in Uganda.

            Abstinence-based sex education can include issues of human relationships, the basic biology of human reproduction, safe sex methodsand contraceptives, HIV/AIDS information, and masturbation in place of sex. It recommends sexual abstinence outside marriage as an ideal, having only a single long-term sexual partner. The use of condoms and other safe sex practices is advocated only if it is not possible to remain with a single sexual partner. Advocating this ideal, whilst pragmatically dealing with the fact that abstinence only sex education
            is ineffective by itself, has made the ABC approach popular with many African governments and relief agencies.[1]

            The ABC approach has notably been used in African countries. Versions of this approach have been used for abstinence-only sex education in Uganda, among others.[2] Its positive impact has been confirmed by a 2009 Stanford University survey.[3]

          • Asemodeus

            “I do not think you are analyzing the metrics properly.”

            You are using the wrong terms. Abstinence in America means abstinence only education.

          • Jim Dailey

            Oh. You admit your claim was too broad then? In other words you want to restrict your claim of “Every metric of success” to “Metrics gathered in studies based in the United States where abstinence only showed that “abstinence only” is a colossal failure?
            Big claims like yours undoubtedly have big proof! You are clearly a scholar and not someone who anonymously blows smoke out their asses. Please, dazzle us all with your insight.

          • Asemodeus

            “Oh. You admit your claim was too broad then?”

            Nope, you are just too clueless to know what it means.

          • Jim Dailey

            Shocking. Another apologist for baby-murder with no facts – just polemics and hysterics. That really is all you people have.

          • Asemodeus

            Thanks for proving my point by showcasing how you have none.

          • The point of abstinence programs is to produce parents. But hey, you hate parents, because you are a whiny little adolescent who never grew up.

          • Asemodeus

            The point of abstinence programs is to keep teenagers ignorant because the idea of them enjoying sex is disgusting to sexists such as yourself.

          • Your short term thinking is disgusting and wasteful. And of course, because of it, the enjoyment YOU get out of sex is fleeting, never procreative, never eternal.

          • Asemodeus

            Luckily nobody takes your perversions seriously seeber.

      • Mike Blackadder

        Yes, and a return to a standard of sexual morality somewhat akin to what is preached by the church.
        Abortion rates are 10 times higher among couples living together and unmarried than they are among married couples.

  • DC Rambler

    I can only assume by the fervor and tone that all these protector’s of the lives of children are rushing to the aid of these frightened Central American kids that are escaping drug wars and death in their villages. You are of course outraged that some politicians want to speed up deportation and when you saw that angry mob screaming at those kids in Murrieta, you wept. If you would like to do more go to Border Angels on Facebook..They are providing clothes, diapers, toothbrushes, rides, legal aid and love. They could really use your help to save these children..

  • PlumDumpling

    Anthropologically speaking, Homo sapiens has three strategies for dealing with unwanted reproduction (births): contraception, abortion and infanticide. All three strategies are practiced in every culture worldwide historically
    and currently.

    Those who restrict contraception and abortion make infanticide, child abandonment/abuse and maternal mortality inevitable. We have many in vitro examples of this but the one that troubles me the most at the moment is this example:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new

    There is nothing moral about your position, if your position is controlling women’s reproductive choices by law. Illegal abortion and sepsis and hemorrhage in childbirth are the three leading causes of maternal death worldwide. Women have blood in the game. YOU do not. Abortion and contraception are human rights.

    • Mike Blackadder

      Um hello. If you don’t want to get pregnant then don’t have sex. Those who are having sex outside the context of a committed and monogamous (ie. married) relationship are having abortions at exceedingly higher rates.

      I acknowledge your point that women die in childbirth, that childbirth is even dangerous in that light. The people who are killed during abortions also have blood in the game. Lets make abortion as rare as maternal mortality in pregnancy and then we’ll talk.

      Abortion and contraception are not human rights. Abortion is a rare necessity to save a woman’s life (or prevent acute bodily harm) and in that instance has a right to protect herself. In most any other instance, the choice is to kill another person out of preference. Not only is THAT not anyone’s right, it is a basic violation of the whole concept of freedom and rights.

      People have rights about how and when they choose to have sex though are still subject to the consequences of those choices (including a parent who will throw their kid out of the house or discipline them in some other way for those choices). So if a couple chooses affirmatively to have sex and to use contraceptives which they have paid for, then that is surely their right. It is not their right to force others to pay for their choice of having sex or to have society artificially diminish the consequences of their decisions regarding sex.

      • PlumDumpling

        “Um hello. If you don’t want to get pregnant then don’t have sex.”
        ………..
        No thank you. You be abstinent. I will save France.

        • Save France for what, since you hate children?

          • PlumDumpling

            I see jokes are beyond you. Poor thing.

  • Asemodeus

    It is important to remember, since it makes forced birthers heads explode, is that the leader in lowering the number of abortions in America is Planned Parenthood.

    They are the single largest private organization that hands out free or cheap contraception to anyone that asks. They also offer expansive sex education classes and lectures on the subject. These two things, education and contraception, contribute more to the reduction of abortions than anything else.

    Yet the “pro-lifers” constantly attack PP and restrict sex education and contraception. It is like they are more focused on something else than trying to save fetus’s…

    • oregon nurse

      PP is in the business of encouraging as much sex as possible (especially among the irresponsible young) because the bulk of their money comes from abortions. You can’t keep the supply of women wanting abortions high unless you have sex-ed programs that promote ‘consequence-free sex’ through the use of contraception. PP knows how often the contraception fails, which means more abortions, ad nauseum. It’s an industry – open your eyes.

      • Asemodeus

        “PP is in the business of encouraging as much sex as possible (especially
        among the irresponsible young) because the bulk of their money comes
        from abortions.”

        Wrong. Abortion services are a tiny fraction of their overall business.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html

        “You can’t keep the supply of women wanting abortions high unless you
        have sex-ed programs that promote ‘consequence-free sex’ through the use
        of contraception.”

        Which is a contradiction in terms since contraception is designed to prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus the need for abortions. Consequence free sex is a good thing and should be promoted for healthy relationships.

        “PP knows how often the contraception fails”

        Which varies wildly from device to device. You can also use multiple methods at once without worry. You are fear mongering and doing a terrible job of it.

        “It’s an industry – open your eyes.”

        The vast majority of which isn’t abortions. Denying them funding would increase the rates of unwanted pregnancies and back alley abortions.

        • Jim Dailey

          The problem with the Washington Post article is that the alleged 3% is true if you add up all their “services”. That is, an abortion is a single “service” just as a blood screen is a single service.
          When looked at another way. PP in 2013 performed 329,445 abortions, and 51% of their revenues were based on performing the abortions.

          That is, as we all suspect, you can charge a lot more for murdering a baby than for testing blood.

          • Asemodeus

            “The problem with the Washington Post article is that the alleged 3% is
            true if you add up all their “services”. That is, an abortion is a
            single “service” just as a blood screen is a single service.”

            Which is the rational means of looking at this.

            “When looked at another way. PP in 2013 performed 329,445 abortions, and
            51% of their revenues were based on performing the abortions.”

            Which is lying with statistics since you don’t put that in context with the other services they provide.

            Their latest report has them performing 490,000 pap tests, 550,000 breast exams, 515,000 unintentional pregnancies avoided, 1,590,000 emergency contraception kits provided, 2,130,000 women provided with contraception services, 160,000 STIs diagnosed, 700,000 HIV tests, and 1.1 million pregnancy tests.

            Nowhere in their report is a significant percent coming from abortion services. The vast majority of their revenues comes from government grants and private contributions.

            Painting PP as just doing abortions is a bald faced lie.

          • Jim Dailey

            That is why I pointed out that the majority of their revenue stream – 51% – was directly attributable to the abortions. We can safely assume that since Planned Parenthood as a not-for-profit more or less “breaks even” every year, that the 51% percent of the revenues generated by abortions is in fact what keeps them solvent, is in fact what makes money available for the greedy scumbags running the place, and is in fact their main line of business.
            This directly supports Oregon Nurse’s contention that PP is in the business of selling abortions. Your claim is like saying that Nike’s core business is not selling sneakers because they sell all other kinds of stuff as well.

          • Asemodeus

            “That is why I pointed out that the majority of their revenue stream – 51% – was directly attributable to the abortions.”

            Which I discredited, so try to keep up.

          • A man who is incapable of knowing that sex is for making children, is incapable of discrediting anything, because he is not credible.

          • Asemodeus

            You be unaware of this due to being a sexist pig, but sex is also very pleasurable.

          • Only when done properly and when it lasts 25-30 years.

          • If sex is only for making children why can women continue to have orgasms after menopause? Why do women have orgasms at all? A women’s orgasm isn’t needed for procreation.

          • To encourage her to stay with her husband for the protection of the children and grandchildren. procreation does not end with intercourse.

          • … nor does intercourse have to lead to procreation.

            So, using your logic, for the 75% (according to some recent studies) of women that don’t achieve an orgasm during sex, according to you they are likely to leave their husband. You have some very unusual theories. Do you have any factually based evidence backing up these theories?

          • How about the 75% divorce rate? I find it interesting that your statistic matches another one I’ve heard recently. Correlation is not causation of course, but I find your bait and switch interesting too. 75% of women don’t experience orgasms at all, but many (as in more than 50%) of women experience orgasms after menopause. That’s at least 125% of women, which suggests that you’re about as good at math as I am at indicating hyperbole online.

          • How about the 75% divorce rate?

            Again … do your research before posting, don’t just go by “what you’ve heard recently” because your sources for information apparently are NOT credible.

            The divorce rate has held steady over the last decade at about 40%. You can find stats at the CDC’s website. If you can’t get the basics correct what makes anyone want to read and believe any other part of your comments and find them credible?

          • Is this the same CDC that blames the AIDS crisis on men having sex with men?

          • And in case you were wondering … the 75% statistic I mentioned previously comes from not from just one study, but from a comprehensive analysis of 33 studies over an 80 year period by Elisabeth Lloyd in her book The Case of the Female Orgasm. Her conclusion was that the female orgasm is basically “just for fun.” Imagine God created a feature in women that they can just have sex for pleasures sake. I know that will be difficult for a Catholic to believe unless the Pope, Bishop or Priest tells you so.

          • Why should I believe Elisabeth Lloyd or any so-called “33 studies” done by sexual perverts?

          • You, personally, won’t believe it.

            I could tell you that the Pope is from Argentina but you probably wouldn’t believe me, since, I’m guessing, you don’t find me credible or relevant. But the vast majority of other readers would believe me, which is enough for me.

            I’m not here to convince you that my position is right and that yours is wrong. I’m here to allow the vast majority to think for themselves and decide who is right. I think I’ve made better points and better arguments but I leave it to others to decide that.

          • Why should other readers believe you? Why should any Catholic believe a slave of the sexual revolution?

          • oregon nurse

            You’ve been discredited.

          • Asemodeus

            Thanks for proving my point.

          • oregon nurse

            Jim,
            Thanks for doing the sources. I don’t even bother to get into dueling studies anymore because of the facility with lying so common to people like asmodeus – whose chosen name identifies him as a demon of hell. Go figure!

          • Asemodeus

            “Thanks for doing the sources.”

            In order to do the sources he would actually need to cite sources.

          • oregon nurse

            He used yours to point out your lies, idiot.

          • Asemodeus

            You are in full denial mode, aren’t ya? Too bad when christians turn out like this after getting smacked down over and over.

          • Jim Dailey

            You are welcome. I am always curious to see what sort of claptrap is being published by the Washington Post. Alos it is great good fun to confuse these people with facts.

          • Jim, Thanks for doing the sources.

            -1
            What sources?!? Jim didn’t back up his conjectures with any sources.
            I do miss the disqus downvote button.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            Really? You like to show your ignorance in such a bold and blatant manner? If the Salvation Army shows that it’s primary source of funding is donations that stem from appeals to people to help the homeless, the indigent, and those in desperate situations, you will say that the Salvation Army is in the business of creating poverty, homelessness, and desperation? There is a reason that there are not-for-profits providing services not to generate income for shareholders but to improve things for society in general. That this fundamental difference is totally lost on you should make you shudder that you used the term “scumbags” about people who compassionately provide care to those in need when all you do is spread lies and disinformation.

          • Why is our statistic a lie and yours isn’t? I consider yours to be a particularly irrational version of events.

          • Asemodeus

            “Why is our statistic a lie and yours isn’t?”

            Because I can read annual reports.

            ” I consider yours to be a particularly irrational version of events.”

            You barely have a sane grip on reality as it is, so I take that as a compliment.

          • “Because I can read annual reports.”

            Then you can read that abortion provides 51% of the income.

            “You barely have a sane grip on reality as it is, so I take that as a compliment.”

            You take it as a compliment that I consider you more insane than I am?

          • Asemodeus

            “Then you can read that abortion provides 51% of the income.”

            Which the annual report doesn’t claim. Like I said, you have a poor grasp on reality.

            “You take it as a compliment that I consider you more insane than I am?”

            Oh yes. You are so consistently wrong on a wide range of topics that to be derided by you is actually a compliment.

            You are like a reverse prophet. Everything you say is wrong so people should take the opposite of what you claim as the truth.

          • Says the man who has sex when he does not want children

          • Asemodeus

            Which is a healthy lifestyle choice to make. Responsible procreation and everything.

      • CowsomeLoneboy

        How about opening your eyes? And being honest instead of moralizing and being disingenuous. Study after study has proven that unwanted pregnancy rates are much higher in areas where there is no sex education or abstinence-only sex education than in areas where complete, scientifically accurate, and age-appropriate sex education is offered. In Western Europe unwanted pregnancy rates are much lower than they are in many regions of the US and it is precisely because of the mature, healthy, and rational approach to sexuality that is taken there instead of the shaming of the type you promote with talk of promotion of “consequence-free sex.”

        You say that Planned Parenthood wants more unintended pregnancies but the facts show that you are the one who favors such an outcome.

      • Sven2547

        This makes no sense on multiple levels.

        * If PP is a nonprofit, the follow-the-money position makes no sense because it’s not like they’re getting rich. They’re a nonprofit.

        * If PP wants more abortions to happen, why do they support and promote the most effective tried-and-proven methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies?

        • Nonprofit just means they can avoid taxes on the $300 BILLION per year that they do make.

          And the one most effective tried-and-proven method of preventing unwanted pregnancies, NO SEXUAL CONTACT, is the one they never mention in their version of sex ed.

          • Sven2547

            $300 BILLION per year

            Wow, you just make stuff up whole cloth, don’t you?

            And the one most effective tried-and-proven method of preventing unwanted pregnancies, NO SEXUAL CONTACT, is the one they never mention in their version of sex ed.

            Confirmed. You really do just make stuff up. EVERY comprehensive sex-ed curriculum discusses abstinence. Every single one.

          • Asemodeus

            “Nonprofit just means they can avoid taxes on the $300 BILLION per year that they do make.”

            To put that in context, the 2013 defense spending was at $716 billion dollars. So you are trying to argue that they make around 40% of revenues from the largest military on the planet…

            Wow.

            “Confirmed. You really do just make stuff up. EVERY comprehensive sex-ed curriculum discusses abstinence. Every single one.”

            If I recall correctly he is one of those christians that think contraception is a primary cause of rape in this country.

          • Only because I see no difference between consequence free sex and rape.

          • PlumDumpling

            Rape apologists are the scum of the earth.

          • Asemodeus

            Perhaps you can get through to Mike Blackadder over why contraception is health care for women.

            He is one of those republicans that thinks contraception is only good for sluts.

          • PlumDumpling

            Contraception is good for sluts. And married women who want to control their family size. And women with endometriosis. And dysmenorrhea. And women who never want children. And women soldiers in war zones.
            Bottom line = the anus needs to stop practicing medicine without a license.

          • Not the one being pushed in Portland Public Schools, by, gasp, Planned Parenthood.

          • Galorgan

            Wow, I never heard of that. Is this true? Can you share a link please?

          • Asemodeus

            Whoa whoa whoa, you cannot ask Seeber for evidence!

          • Asemodeus

            Your very own link discredits your claim that PP doesn’t teach abstinence.

            Wow, we should start questioning if you can even read in the first place.

          • Jim Dailey

            Say – aren’t you the guy preaching that teaching abstinence is an abysmal failure. Then certainly we can see here that PP., who has a motive (I stick by my 51% claim by the way) to “sell” abortions, is deliberately mucking up the job?
            In addition, the other services they sell all eal with problems that do not occur when abstience is practiced. Another reason to do a poor job of “teaching abstinence.

          • Asemodeus

            “(I stick by my 51% claim by the way)”

            Because you don’t know how to read annual reports.

            The rest is gibberish.

          • Jim Dailey

            No. The fact is that I do in fact read the report, and not only that I cross analyze with other facts.
            I realize these concepts are gibberish to you because you are stupid and lazy.

          • Asemodeus

            You are so lazy that you cannot even come up with your own quips. Meanwhile, here is the annual report:

            http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/7413/9620/1089/AR-FY13_111213_vF_rev3_ISSUU.pdf

            When you find the 51% revenue comes from abortion let me know. It might be around page 19.

          • oregon nurse

            Slightly different % but the same point. You won’t get the facts from PP. They love abortion but they don’t want you to know just how much. When you add in government support that probably brings it very close to Jim’s 51%.
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/07/_3_percent_of_planned_parenthood_s_services_are_abortion_but_what_about.html

          • oregon nurse

            This is the insanity of the hook up culture (you’d think they would have learned a lesson from gay men who killed themselves off with AIDS and hepatitis). Instead of changing the underlying behavior to avoid all the bad outcomes, they just keep trying to find ways to ‘manage’ them. Kind of like a diabetic who won’t stop eating sugar, so they have to ‘manage’ blindness, kidney failure, amputations, and chronic infections, etc. etc.

          • Jim Dailey

            Why do we have to underwrite all their idiotic activities?

          • oregon nurse

            Because they are in the pockets of enough people in government is the short answer. The comprehensive answer includes a long discussion of evil.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            If you are truly a nurse, as I am, then you are close to sources for therapy. You sorely need some, because your outlook is patently unhealthy. Please take advantage of one of those readily available sources. The sake of your own health and that of the patients you may be damaging depend on it.

          • oregon nurse

            And your opinion counts because?

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            Because unlike what you have consistently displayed in this comment stream about yourself, I rely on fact and not lies, innuendo, and unfounded opinion. I can guarantee you that what you spout here is not taught in nursing school.

          • oregon nurse

            Politically incorrect facts are hard for you to accept no doubt which makes it important for you to re-cast them as lies, innuendo, and unfounded opinion to remain comfortable in your little bubble. Whatever.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            That you would talk about “politically incorrect facts” tells just about everything anyone needs to know. Facts are facts, but obviously you haven’t got around to that lesson. How did you pass the NCLEX? I don’t live in a bubble and I can’t be comfortable because there is so much ignorance out there and folks like you just keep piling it on. Hope you’re more honest and factual in all your incidence reports, which I can’t imagine you wouldn’t need to file often, given your propensity to eschew learning.

            Whatever. Yeah, whatever.

          • oregon nurse

            Sweetie, I passed my nursing boards (2 full days worth of testing) years before there was such a thing as the NCLEX. Probably explains why I have plenty of knowledge and facts that aren’t based in political correctness. We both know there is nothing quite as politically correct as a school of nursing these days. Faculty in some schools are 50% lesbian/gay and another 40% are sympathizers. Kinda says a lot about what you will be taught about ‘normal’ sexual behavior in school, no?

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            Well, Crumbcake, what you just revealed of yourself by your comment about nursing college faculty tells me you are: just as bigoted as I’d suspected you are but didn’t have complete proof until now and one of those who give the rest of us nurses a bad rep. Most people choose to go into nursing because they are caring and helpful individuals. Did your mom or your dad force you into the profession?

          • Galorgan

            Uh, am I missing something? I don’t see anything supporting your previous assertion. Rather, this quote is in the Nebraska document linked on said site: “Funding Purpose: Funds must be used for a program designed to educate adolescents on both
            abstinence and contraception to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV/AIDS, and at least three adulthood preparation subjects.”

            And this quote is linked on the PREP education (referred to as a cesspool…): “The purpose of this program is to educate adolescents and young adults on both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS. The Affordable Care Act was established and provided funding for this program through FY 2014.”

          • Your provided link does not back up any of your earlier postings. Did you post the wrong link?

          • Possibly. Though the TOP program was specifically what I was talking about, with its overemphasis on alternative sexuality and despite the course description, utter lack of emphasis on the holy virtue of chastity, called by secularists abstinence.

          • Sven2547

            I thought I asked you to stop lying? And can you provide a citation for this $300 billion figure?

          • PlumDumpling

            The Asexual must not make rules for the normally sexed.

          • What PP pushes is not “normal”, or else the human species would have died out a million years ago. The point of sex is to have children.

          • PlumDumpling

            I live in PA. What are we pushing? The Amish?

          • Bad cell phone. Editing. PP. Planned Parenthood.

          • PlumDumpling

            The point of sex is orgasm. Some people want children. Some do not.

            You do not know anything about Planned Parenthood. And you are telling easily refuted lies. What is wrong with you? Something is.

            I used PP for low cost contraception and gynecologic care when I was a young Mother and Student for about 5 years. Now my daughters use them for the same thing. PP is good.

          • That’s only a short term step in a 35 year process of sex done correctly.

            What may be “wrong with me” is that I insist upon long term happiness as opposed to short term pleasure, and I do not consider those who only think of short term pleasure as sane (in fact, I consider them to be abusive of themselves and others).

          • PlumDumpling

            Okay. Precisely what do your preferences have to do with my sexual/family life? Nothing at all.
            In fact, those who feel entitled to lecture me about my sexual/family life need to step back. When I need a sexpig’s opinion, I will let you know.

          • Asemodeus

            “What may be “wrong with me” is that I insist upon long term happiness as opposed to short term pleasure”

            In seebers demented worldview you cannot have both of these at the same time. Which is how normal people operate, having sex to see if they are compatible for a longer intimate relationship.

          • oregon nurse

            Is that what you tell your girlfriends to get them to have sex with you? Assuming anyone even talks to you that is.

          • PlumDumpling

            No way I would ever consider a long term relationship with a man unless we were sexually good together. I try before I buy.

          • PlumDumpling

            The PP budget is public record because it is a not for profit corporation. You lie.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            If you’re going to be a shameless shill for illogic and empty moralizing, at least have a shred of decency and tell the truth. Every education program that Planned Parenthood offers discusses why abstinence is a good idea and appropriate in so many situations, both from a physical and emotional health standpoint. That is fact. You have committed the sin of telling untruths. How does that feel?

          • “Every education program that Planned Parenthood offers discusses why abstinence is a good idea and appropriate in so many situations”

            Except TOP, which suggests that oral sex and masterbation is better as long as you “Take care down there”.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            Oh, Theodore, in case you missed it, masturbation (notice the spelling) is abstinence. It is the way that nature has provided for people to take care of the natural (and therefore completely normal and healthy) physical needs that human sexuality gives to human beings in a way that prevents all those things that folks like you fret about with intercourse: pregnancy, STIs, emotional complications before they can be maturely handled. If you’re from the camp that wants to shame people for masturbating, then you’re going to have to explain why practically every male on the planet and a large percentage of females do so on a regular basis. Doesn’t your irrational and unhealthy fear of sex give you even the slightest pause?

            As to oral sex, again when the majority of mankind engages in a behavior derived from natural drives and that behavior in no way harms society, you’ll have a hard time convincing very many that they shouldn’t do it just because you say so. Ever hear of Prohibition? Didn’t work out so well, as I understand it. And one could plausibly argue that prohibiting the consumption of alcohol could be a good thing, but it didn’t work. Prohibiting oral sex through shaming and casting it as evil doesn’t even have any justification such as banning alcohol might claim.

            TOP is a program that Planned Parenthood utilizes but is not theirs. It has received national recognition for its effectiveness in preventing teen pregnancy and STIs. It does include discussions of abstinence, despite your insinuation otherwise.

            Again, one must ask: why are you so afraid of sex?

          • “Oh, Theodore, in case you missed it, masturbation (notice the spelling) is abstinence.”

            No. In fact it isn’t. It is part of the pornographic culture that leads to rape.

          • Asemodeus

            In seebers mind perfectly healthy sexual needs always lead to rape.

          • http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0332_Ted_Bundy.html

            Porn use doesn’t always mean masterbation, but the addiction is similar.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            Before I was only guessing that you had sexual issues. Now I have proof positive that something major is going on.

          • Yep, it’s called Catholicism. Check which Patheos channel this blog is on, cowboy.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            Good one! Yes, the RCC: expert on all matters sexual, just so long as they’re between children and priests!

          • Yes, given that pederasty and homosexuality have been rejected as behaviors by canon law for about 1700 years. Try to separate the teaching from your own drug addled brain.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            Wow! Love that Christian attitude! I’ve done nothing to indicate a “drug addled brain.” I can understand that you disagree with me and I’ve made remarks about you in the context of this discussion, but I never went off the farm and said something akin to that you’re embezzling from your business or that you beat your wife. Really enjoyed that slur from you.

            Whether it has been part of canon law or not, the prolonged misdeeds and the vast international character of the church’s coverup of priest abuse speaks a whole lot more distinctly than the dictates of ancient documents that were all the same ignored. The RCC has made pronouncements on sexuality with the greatest of arrogance, up until this latest pope, and has shown infinitessimal understanding and the utmost of hypocrisy on the subject. Why anyone would accept the word of the church on this particular subject at this point is a testament to the protracted, willful gullibility of so many.

          • Except, of course, showing an extreme addiction to oxycotin.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            Keep witnessing for your faith! You’re a shining example!

          • As you are witnessing for yours, a shining example of worship of the holy orgasm.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            Well, yes, if you want to put it that way, I will gladly say that I will witness for orgasms, as medical science has shown that a healthy sex life with frequent orgasms has rich potential for promoting health and longevity. Again, if you have a problem with sexuality that is too bad, really. But if you and your church want to turn sex into something shameful, evil, and to be avoided except on a few days in your life when you set out to create another human being, you might want to consider what is truly evil. To knowingly want to condemn people for something so basic to human existence and so important to health and happiness, only someone with twisted sensibilities would want to pervert such a lovely natural part of life into something to control and demean human beings.

          • It is the sexual revolution, in divorcing sex from procreation, that turned it into something shameful, evil, and to be avoided. It’s also the sexual revolution that caused clergy to turn away from their vows of celibacy and started abusing children. I blame the baby boomer generation for that mess.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            You would blame the baby boomers. Ignorance of history allows you to do that. Clergy abuse began before the sexual revolution. And the church’s shaming regarding sexuality goes back centuries. I’m old, but I’m not nearly that old. In fact, I’d be willing to wager nobody from the baby boomer generation is.

          • The current Clergy Abuse Scandal began in 1956, and ended in 1986. Where there have always been isolated cases here and there, Pedastery has been against Canon Law since the Didache- the earliest catechism. Priestly celibacy, which is also offended and broken by Clergy Abuse, has been a common discipline (NOT doctrine or dogma, it’s only a discipline) since the 300s, and a required discipline in many situations since 397. ONLY the generation of the Baby Boomers choose to throw caution to the wind and destroy sexual morality. And the destructiveness of that decision, both secular and religious, is still with us today.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            You can certainly research history. You can also cherry-pick it very well. Too bad you don’t understand it. Simply consider this. By your own dates, which are suspect all the same since the RCC had already established an organization in the early 50s in part to deal with the problem of pederast priests, baby boomers would not have reached sexual maturity by 1956. Kind of hard to blame them and their “sexual revolution” when they weren’t even sexually aware at the time you yourself fix as the beginning of the priest abuse scandal. While not unique to the United States, the baby boom phenomenon was not worldwide, yet the priest sex abuse scandals have affected countries throughout the world.

            Finally, let me ask you this: You keep implying that the church is the antidote to the sexual mores that you find so filthy and disgusting. (Sex must be a real joy in your and yours lives.) If the church is the antidote, why do you lay the blame for the church’s failings at the feet of the baby boomers? To be consistent in your outlook, shouldn’t the church have been the best place to have been to avoid what you find so corrupt and appalling?

          • Sex is a real joy in my life- because it takes 35 years to finish. I’m 11 years in to one sexual act, and he just told me he’s “taking a break” from working on cleaning his room.

            THAT is the sex that I don’t find filthy or disgusting- procreation- raising children.

            And yes, I find the best in Church teaching, not necessarily in the men who fail to live up to church teaching and then tell me that the rules don’t have to apply to them. Worse yet are the idiots who claim there are no rules, then complain when people break their rules that they claimed didn’t exist in the first place.

            You can either have family or hedonism. You can’t have both.

          • Dan13

            The oldest Baby Boomers were born in 1946 (nine months after the end of the war). So Baby Boomers weren’t becoming priests until the mid-70s. For the most part, the Baby Boomers were the victims, not the perpetrators of the sex abuse scandal. Nor were the Baby Boomers, for the most part, the bishops who were covering up in the scandal in the early 2000s. You can blame the Boomers for a lot of things but the sex-abuse scandal is not one of them.

          • The scandal would not have happened without the loosening of sexual morality in the late 1950s and the 1960s. But I do take your point that the GI generation was as much to blame for that disaster as the Baby Boomers.

          • Not everything “natural” is normal and healthy. One should ask why you are afraid of children.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            And one should ask why you don’t engage your brain before tapping your keyboard. I believe that my daughters, my granddaughter, all the kids I’ve tutored, and all the kids I’ve spent time with as a room parent and school trip chaperone and PTO president, not to mention all my nieces and nephews and all their offspring, would ask you why you would ask a question so ill conceived as that one.

            Please, get help. Your worldview is corroded and corrosive.

          • And yet, you’ve encouraged them all in a culture of death and worship of the holy orgasm.

          • Asemodeus

            TOP teaches abstinence too, so you are just a really bad liar.

          • Only for those idiots who think masterbation is a form of abstinence.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            For someone calling others idiots, you might want to consider that you’ve been told how to spell masturbation and your persist in misspelling it. You might want to also consider that it isn’t very hard to do a little internet research and learn that the TOP program really does teach about abstinence, so calling someone an idiot who only states facts perhaps says more about the name caller than the one he is calling names.

          • I persist in misspelling it for a reason. But I’m not surprised you do not understand.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            And that somehow makes you less of a dolt? Given your twisted perspective on sexuality, I’m sure I don’t want to understand.

          • Nobody, least of all me, ever claimed to not be a dolt.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            Ah, at long last, a refreshing breath of honesty! Welcome to the human race! Stick around with us. Being honest instead of believing in morality fairy tales is really healthy.

          • Except what you believe is arguably the fairy tale.

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            Yes, you could argue that and I suspect you would. You’ve certainly invested a lot of energy and time into arguing here. The problem you won’t have, because you simply don’t believe in it, is that to determine what is a fairy tale one must start trying to separate fact from superstition and unfounded belief. A great many people have no trouble discerning between fact and opinion, the empirically observable and the wildly conjectured. I don’t believe you’re in that group.

          • And the belief in the holy orgasm is superstition and unfounded belief, no matter how many cherry picked studies you come up with from perverts to say otherwise. You are NOT objective nor empirical in this matter, at all.

          • Asemodeus

            We have already established that you don’t know what sex means.

          • You’re the one who seems to have no idea what sex means, since you deny the procreative aspect of it.

            But keep dreaming in your drug induced coma. I’m sure you’ll get to where you are going eventually.

          • Planned Parenthood’s budget is $1.2 billion. Please get our facts straight before posting.

        • Jim Dailey

          Just to be clear – the Directors of these corporations are very, very well paid, and do not answer to shareholders. It is a pretty sweet gig.

      • Only 3% of the Planned Parenthood’s budget goes toward abortion procedures. Please do your research before posting something that is blatantly wrong as a fact.

        • Jim Dailey

          You are confusing “Services” with “Budget”.
          Of the total number of PP “services”, 3% are abortions. That is if you count a blood test as a single event, a PAP smear as a single event, a counselling session as a single event, and an abortion as a single event.
          However, as we all know, an abortion costs a lot more than a blood test. An MD is involved, a surgical procedure is involved, disposal of extensive “medical waste” is involved.

          We see from the PP annual report that they perform 330,000 abortions. Multiply this by $450 (average amount charged by an abortion, and you can approximate the amount of revenue generated at their clinic (About 50% of clinic revenue.

          Now you assume that the Federal Government Grants “make up” the difference in cost versus amount charged to the patient. That is, the Grants are need based, and if PP is making a profit, no Grants from the Fed Government.

          Therefore, we can see that 50% of PPs revenues are dependent entirely on abortions.

          • Asemodeus

            You have been refuted on this already, so you really need to stop lying so badly.

          • Jim Dailey

            Well, write back when you have something intelligent to say. I am happy to discuss my assumptions and my uses of the figures released by Planned Parenthood, but when you are incoherently ranting I am sure it is a waste of both our times.

          • Asemodeus

            “Well, write back when you have something intelligent to say.”

            You are incapable of reading the PP annual report on this very topic, because you would rather be lazy than do actual research.

            The more you keep dodging this the more hilarious this comes for me. So please, proceed with your shallow attempts at deflection. It’s adorable watching christians lie so badly and pretend to have any morality.

          • Even using your hypothetical numbers (330,000 abortions at $450/ea), I still only come up with 12.3% of their budget, or services as you would like to call them, going to abortions. Where you get your made up 50% figure is beyond me and not supported by any factually based evidence.
            Just because an individual gets a counseling session does not necessitate that they will be getting an abortion. PP provides lots of other services to thousands of clients that do not lead to abortions.

          • Asemodeus

            He is also deeply confused over the simple concepts like cost and revenue. If it costs 450 dollars to do a abortion and you charge 450 dollars for it, how much revenue do you make?

          • Well … PP may lose a bit on each abortion but they make up for it volume.

            I had a boss that actually thought this way (we’re losing a $1 on each unit we are selling but we are making up for it in the volume) … funny, he eventually went out of business.

          • Jim Dailey

            $ MM

            #
            abortions X amount charged to patient (Calculated)
            330,000
            $450
            $148.5

            Total
            Non Government Health Services Revenue (P. 18)

            $305.0

            Abortion
            Revenue as a % of Services Revenue (Calculated)

            48.7%

            Total
            Medical Services Expense (P 19)

            $770.5

            Total
            Shortfall – Non Government Health Services Revenue Less Total Medical
            Services

            -$465.5

            Total
            Government Grants (Makes up for shortfall of Medical services revenue and
            funds education/other programs)

            $540.6

            My estimate compares the amount of money earned by what PP charges for abortion services to the total amount earned for charging for all services. 48%. Then we see that the total cost for these Medical Services far outstrips the reveues ($770 vs $305). We see then that the Government – which advances Grants based strictly on needs (i.e. they do not give money to “profitable” not for profits) funds the rest of the incurred serves loss, as well as some of the other, minor programs.

            I am done posting here. I would like to thank you for your demands for proof. I am certain this will come up again, and I bothered to create (if not perfect) my demonstration of how much the senior PP people rely on abortions to keep their well-funded lifestuyles. That is, I am sure this will come in handy.

            See, that is why it is great to be Catholic. We deal with skepticism all the time and learn from it, unlike Atheists.

          • Asemodeus

            “See, that is why it is great to be Catholic. We deal with skepticism all the time and learn from it, unlike Atheists.”

            You’d think that after lying so much you would learn better. Meanwhile, here is the annual financial report PP has to put out every year since it is a non-profit.

            http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/7413/9620/1089/AR-FY13_111213_vF_rev3_ISSUU.pdf

            25% of their revenue comes from health services, which includes everything on top of abortion services. The vast majority of it comes from government and private grants. Their total revenue was 1.2 billion dollars and their total costs were 1.15 billion dollars.

            They are doing a terrible job if they are only making a measly $50 million off of abortions. Using your cost of an abortion of 770 dollars means if you assume half of their revenue comes from abortions, that is only comes out to roughly 32,000 abortions total. Far below your 330,000.

            You are a terrible liar for a Catholic. Perhaps if you dropped that silly religion and embraced rationality you would be a better person.

          • Wow … what a bizarre way to manipulate the figures. I’m glad that you are not my accountant.

            One glaring error (there are others) that you make … you do realize that you can’t lump medical expenses fully into the abortions expense? PP provides other services that fall under category that the have nothing to do with abortions. You are making far too many assumptions with your numbers.

            Unless you have some factually based evidence to back up any of your assumptions, which I don’t see that you do, we can leave this discussion right here.

          • Jim Dailey

            I am glad you are not my client. Given your financial acumen, it would take me a looonngggg time to get you to the point where you could afford me.

            I did not “lump” all medical expenses into abortion expenses. I point out that for every $1 earned by PP for any and all services, they spend $2. Hence the big underwriting from the feds. You get Grant money when you demonstrate need. They are charging under cost for the abortion (as well as the other Medical services provided). It is right in the face of the Income Statement! The $1 for $2 estimate is based on their financial statements.

            Frankly, having studied this, assuming an abortion costs even $900 is way way conservative if you figure in the cost of the facility. That is, I recently saw that PP got a lot of money to set up a baby-murder mill in Atlanta. I do not remember the details, but I do remember figuring out that if you charge a pro-rata cost of the building to each murder, it is about $2,200 per murder, just for the room!

            Again, thank you for forcing me to boil this down to something any intelligent person can understand. It is complicated – far too complicated for you or for Asemodeus – but I am certain this analysis will be meaningful to people who matter.
            Peace be with you!

    • Contraception doesn’t reduce abortion- it in fact *creates* situations that require abortion (when the contraception fails).

      • Asemodeus

        “Contraception doesn’t reduce abortion”

        Contraception limits the number of unwanted pregnancies which is the primary cause of abortions. If you cannot string this simple logic along then you are really lost.

        “it in fact *creates* situations that require abortion (when the contraception fails).”

        While still being significantly higher than not using any to begin with.

        • “Contraception limits the number of unwanted pregnancies ”

          Contraception, when it fails, is the primary cause of unwanted pregnancies. Your premise is invalid, and thus your conclusion is invalid.

          Without contraception, everybody knew sex caused pregnancy, and thus avoidance of sex was avoidance of pregnancy.

          • Asemodeus

            “Contraception, when it fails, is the primary cause of unwanted
            pregnancies. Your premise is invalid, and thus your conclusion is
            invalid.”

            Not using any contraception is the primary cause of unwanted pregnancies. You are using the standard catholic lie of pretending that contraception is unreliable.

            http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm

            A IUD has a failure rate of 0.8%, for example.

            “Without contraception, everybody knew sex caused pregnancy, and thus avoidance of sex was avoidance of pregnancy.”

            Which is ignorant of basic biology if you think unprotected sex causes pregnancy 100% of the time.

          • What is the failure rate of not having sex at all?

          • PlumDumpling

            You husband divorces you for ‘lack of consortium’ and leaves you alone with the kids you did not want anymore of. Oops.

          • What are you doing married if you hate children?

          • PlumDumpling

            Huh? Non sequitur.

          • Asemodeus

            He is full of those.

          • PlumDumpling

            I noticed.

          • Jim Dailey

            Oh SNAP!
            Plum Dummy got schooled!

          • CowsomeLoneboy

            We don’t know for sure so may we ask you what your failure rate is?

          • PlumDumpling

            Sweety, did your Momma not give you ‘the talk?’
            Fooking is the primary cause of unwanted pregnancies.
            I fook to get an orgasm. I like them.
            I never once in my life fooked to get pregnant.

          • Which is why you are more insane than I am, and completely disconnected from reality.

          • PlumDumpling

            Insane fooking is very nice. I have only known two men capable of such. Both of them were Jewish. And they had long waist length hair. So many men, so little time.

          • PlumDumpling

            I think it is good you know you are crazy. How long since you have seen your shrink?

          • Quite a while now, since the diagnosis of Asperger’s. But at least I know I am crazy. You seem to think you are sane.

          • PlumDumpling

            Did you know they took Asperger’s out of the DSM V?

          • Yes, like they took homosexuality out of the DSM-IIITR: by renaming it. Asperger’s is now HFA

          • PlumDumpling

            Pazzo.

  • CowsomeLoneboy

    “It is true that partisan politics is inevitably corrupting (the question is to what extent, and what amount is tolerable).”

    Nice of the author to state as a truism something that argues against organized religion so effectively. From the earliest history of the Christian church partisan politics have marked the generation of its theology. (Other religions suffer the same consequence: witness, for example, the strife between Sunni and Shi’a Islam.) Tune in to any Christian radio station and listen to them cannibalize supposed fellows of the faith over political differences. It’s hardly any surprise that one of the oldest sects in the history of Christianity, the RCC, is one that has one of the greatest catalogs of corruption, but they all can point with pride at their fair share.

    The author doesn’t want to sully his pure, moral position on abortion, but his pure, moral position is just as much of a fantasy as is his assertion that somehow religion can be above politics. Even if there were a god as the Christians understand it, that god has clearly created humans that in the end are incapable of rising above the imperfections inherent in them.

  • “In 1973, five seven Justices of the United States Supreme Court decided, with absolutely no basis in American constitutional law, that abortion-on-demand at any point in the pregnancy was a constitutional right.”

    Not quite true. What they decided was that Congress had the right to define personhood. Therefore, an act of Congress deciding personhood would reverse abortion.

    • Asemodeus

      Not quite true. They ruled that abortion was a right before the point of viability, a point of time that only the woman’s doctor was qualified to address.

      • “They ruled that abortion was a right before the point of viability, a point of time that only the woman’s doctor was qualified to address.”

        Until such a time that Congress saw fit to define personhood in law. It’s the famous loophole that the Republican Party will never use, because abortion is too useful for getting tax breaks for the rich and reducing the number of poor people to take care of.

        • Asemodeus

          “Until such a time that Congress saw fit to define personhood in law.”

          Which they won’t do because it would be ruled unconstitutional by the 13th amendment.

          • Not according to Roe V. Wade or Doe V. Bolton. It would in fact be constitutional under the 14th amendment, giving rights to every human being.

            Unlike you, who are anti-human.

          • Asemodeus

            ” It would in fact be constitutional under the 14th amendment, giving rights to every human being.”

            Any personhood bill would be declared unconstitutional by the 13th. The 14th doesn’t apply here since the government doesn’t recognize clumps of cells as a person with equal rights as a actual person.

            “Unlike you, who are anti-human.”

            Thanks for the compliment. Coming from someone that doesn’t understand the difference between sex and rape this is a very nice boost for me.

  • Ed

    I’d love to see a debate between the Justices and St. Peter!

  • Elaine S.

    Here’s another mistake that I think politically serious pro-lifers often make: assuming that abortion on demand can only be effectively combatted by electing 100% “pure”, politically and ideologically consistent pro-life candidates who never make compromises or concessions to the other side.

    That’s not how slavery was ended — Abraham Lincoln, the president who ultimately freed the slaves, did NOT run for president in 1860 on an abolitionist platform. His plan, at that time, was to allow slavery to continue in the existing slave states while not allowing it to expand to any new territories, in hopes that it would eventually die out on its own. While he believed slavery was wrong, he did not believe, prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, that it was worth risking the survival of the Union to impose immediate abolition on the South; and he was, after all, an astute politician who knew that he couldn’t afford to totally alienate either side if he wanted to get elected. For that reason, serious, committed abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass did not like Lincoln and refused to vote for him (or anyone else). Yet, it was on “his watch” that slavery, for all practical purposes, came to an end.

    Abortion is often compared to slavery and Roe v. Wade (SCOTUS rules that fetus is not a person) to Dred Scott v. Sandford (SCOTUS rules that black people are not persons). It is, without a doubt, the most divisive, personal moral and political issue since slavery. But I would not rule out the possibility that it will be a less-than-perfectly pro-life president on whose watch Roe is overturned, or abortion on demand comes to an end. It MAY even take a moderate to liberal Republican or Democratic president to end abortion for the same reasons it took someone like Richard Nixon to open up China.